1
10
32
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9f6fab2c377f05ea4868a67f3353791d.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=sVeh9HN7WRklpCjqsRmVIdXHw-hh9WU-w%7EH%7EKM1R5Pfn8aZUQQmxt%7E-UF1wT1qEaYRqgTYcxESnbSFJNfWLghGOFLDQutn65p4McnMwylsq29-T%7EabFRLXaoM-LrAUvo1m-dmegmxJHUtF-PAu1fEUoVvB1oDsn7ozdnWVxU5%7Enj-mA4HIxXCZUzqpSo6D6thS6fFxixzO-Knr4eecN5MVnvf6a3o3LTIAYBpKfAj%7E7R2IpeFtT3GUy%7EdDMvPsi-E7F9zFC3V4LtFxCBDdckcPUrq9j8wwJRHj0x-obtL-u8g2mybxgCe1EEsdJ92uYdWOWmhzCDRYU%7Eoo9TDYquJg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7da33cca055c715ed6100afc887c6f5d
PDF Text
Text
t“V
<*W"
72
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL REFORMER ?
CHARLES WATTS'
( Vice-President 0/ the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Fourpence.
��WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL REFORMER?
' Although Thomas Carlyle has said that “ in these days it
is professed that hero-worship has gone out and finally
ceased,” thousands of the professed followers of Christ
idolise his memory to such an extent that they appear to
be entirely oblivious of any defect either in his character
or in his teachings. They regard their hero as having been
the very embodiment of truth, virtue, and perfection; and
those persons who are compelled to doubt the correctness
of these assumptions are regarded by orthodox believers
as most unreasonable and perverse members of society.
Probably the principal cause why such erroneous and
extravagant notions are entertained of one who, according
to the New Testament, was very little, if at all, superior to
other religious heroes can be accounted for by the fact that
the worshippers of Christ were taught in their childhood to
reverence him as an absolutely perfect character, and as
being beyond criticism. Thus youthful impressions
resulted in fancied creations which, in matured life, have
been accepted as realities. The Rev. James Cranbrook
recognised this truth, for in the preface to his work, The
Founders of Christianity (page 5), he observes : “ Our own
idealisations have invested him (Jesus) with a halo of
spiritual glory, that by the intensity of its brightness
conceals from us the real figure presented in the Gospels.
We see him, not as he is described, but as the ideally
perfect man our own fancies have conceived. But let any
one sit down and critically analyse the sayings and doings
ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels—let him divest his mind
of the superstitious fear of irreverence, and then ask him
self whether all those sayings and doings are in harmony
with the highest wisdom speaking for all ages and races of
�4
AVAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
mankind, and with the conceptions of an absolutely perfect
human nature, and I am mistaken if he will not find a very
great deal he will be forced to condemn.”
Even the sons of Labor, the apostles of Democracy, and
the advocates of Socialism appear disposed to adopt Jesus
as their Patron Saint. Conjectures are being constantly
made by professed modern reformers as to what the
Carpenter of Nazareth would say upon the many political
and social questions that agitate the public mind in this
the latter half of the nineteenth century. These hero
worshippers seem to overlook the apathy of Jesus in
respect to the evils of his own time. Of course, it is not
difficult for an impartial observer to learn why the name of
Christ is invoked to support the various schemes that are
now put forward to aid the regeneration of society.
However little Christianity is practised among us, it is
extensively professed, and it is thought by many a virtue
to assume a belief, whether there are sufficient grounds for
doing so or not. This slavish adherence to fashion is an
undignified prostration of mental freedom and independ
ence, and it is also a fruitful source of the perpetuation of
error. My purpose in examining the claims set up for
Jesus as a political and social reformer, is to ascertain
if the records of his life, doings, and teachings justify such
claims. If Jesus were judged as an ordinary man, living
nearly two thousand years ago, my present task would be
unnecessary. If we assume that such a man once lived, and
that what he said and did is accurately reported, he. should,
in my opinion, be considered as a youth possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavorable influences for
intellectual acquirements, belonging to a race not very
remarkable for literary culture, retaining many of the
failings of his progenitors, and having but little regard for
the world or the things of the world. Viewed under these
circumstances, I could, while excusing many of his errors,
recognise and admire something that is praiseworthy in the
life of “ Jesus of Nazareth.” But when he is raised upon a
pinnacle of greatness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom,
surpassing the production of any age or country, he is then
exalted to a position which he does not merit, and which,
to my mind, deprives him of that credit which otherwise he
would, perhaps, be entitled to.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
5
The contentions which it is my purpose to dispute are :
that Jesus was a political and social reformer, and that
his alleged teachings contain the remedies for the wrongs
of modern society. Before directly dealing with these
points it may be necessary to glance at the various aspects
of reform that have, at different times in our national
history, been presented to the community; also to briefly
consider the nature of the required reforms, and some of
the principal methods that have been adopted to secure
them.
In quite primitive ages important struggles took place
to establish greater equality in the conditions of life. In
the time of Moses, according to the Bible, the land, for
instance, was not merely the subject of “tracts for the
times,” but the laws and regulations relating to it were
practically dealt with. It did not, however, cease to be
property, and its inheritance was recognised as a rightful
thing. The stock-in-trade of many modern reformers is
the denunciation of those who “ add house to house, field to
field, and grind the faces of the poor.” If this condemnation
is one of the many features of Socialism, then Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel may, in this particular, be fairly
termed Socialists—a name foreign to their language and to
the ideas of their day.
The contention with some is, that Christ was a successor
to all these prophets, that he took the same kind of
objection as they did to the then existing state of things,
and that he used the same form of speech in denouncing
them. The general reply to this is, that Christ was, if
anything, only a prophetic reformer, not a real one. In
proof of this many facts in his alleged history may be
cited. For instance, he did not rescue the land from the
control of the Romans, who held it from the people very
much in the same way as landholders do now; he did not
attempt to render any aid to the laborers of Rome, who in
his day were resisting the injustice of the capitalists; he
did not deliver his brethren of “ the royal house ” from
their foreign rulers; he did not redeem the Jews from
their social evils, or restore justice to their nation. In a
word, he entirely failed to do the reforming work that was
expected of him. About the year 1825 the “Christian
Socialists of London ” called special attention to the question
�6
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
of land as regulated by Moses, and the living in common
by the early Christians; but no practical issue arose out of
the discussion. From that period down to the present
the same subject has been more or less agitated, and still
the matter is very far from being settled. Now, if it is
alleged that Christ sought to bring about a just settlement
of the land problem, then the existence of the present
oppressive land laws proves that he failed, and that his
most devout followers have been equally unfortunate.
If Christ had been a practical reformer, we should not have
in our midst the deplorable injustice, the wrongs, and the
inequalities that now afflict society. These evils and draw
backs—the growth of centuries during which Christianity
was in power—-will doubtless be lessened, if not altogether
destroyed; but the work will be achieved by a moral
revolution, inaugurated and conducted by men who will
possess ability and experience that it is evident Jesus never
had.
It must be borne in mind that there are two kinds of
revolution—one that is gradual and intellectual, and there
fore useful; the other that is sudden, born of passion, and
therefore often useless as an important factor in securing
permanent reforms. We know that every change of
thought, or condition of things, involves a revolution which,
if controlled by reason and regulated by the lessons of
experience, must aid rational progress, and tend to build up
a State, and secure its permanence. But there is another
kind of revolution, which is sought to be produced by
Nihilism and Anarchism, both of which aim at the
destruction of the State. I am not in favor of either of
these “isms,” believing, as I do, that in our present
condition of society some form of government is necessary.
Law and order, based upon the national will, and the
principle of justice, appear to me to be essential in any
scheme that is accepted for the purpose of furthering the
political and social progress of the world. Then we have
Socialism, which concerns itself with economic, ethical,
political, and industrial questions. The principal subject,
however, dealt with by Socialists is the accumulation
and distribution of wealth. State Socialism dates from
the time of the eminent French writer, Claude, H. Count
de St. Simon, whose works were published in 1831. He
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
tried to secure the amelioration of the condition of the
poor, and aimed at the organisation of labor and the
distribution of the fruits of industry, upon the principle of
every man being rewarded according to his works.
Socialism is, in fact, an attempt (whether it is the best that
could be made is with some persons a debateable point) to
regulate the social relations, making them more equal than
they are at present, either by individual combination, by
municipal or co-operative action, by a philanthropic policy
of the Church, or by the control of the State. This last
phase of the Socialistic scheme means the complete
regulation by law of the equality of individuals, the State
being the owner of the land, and of all the instruments of
industry that are at present possessed by individuals, public
companies, etc., who now regulate, in their own interest,
production and distribution.
Having thus briefly stated the general conceptions and
aims of political and social reformers, the next step is to
inquire in what relation Jesus stands to any or all of them.
Of course there is only one source of information upon the
subject at our command—that of the four Gospels. From
these it will not be difficult to demonstrate that Jesus was
no mundane reformer. Although he was surrounded by
poverty, slavery, oppression, and mental degradation, he
made no effort to rid society of these curses to humanity.
As John Stuart Mill observes, in his work upon
Liberty (pp. 28, 29), in referring to Christian morality:
“I do not scruple to say of it that it is, in many im
portant points, incomplete and one-sided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings, not sanctioned by it, had contributed
to the formation of European life and character, human
affairs would have been in a worse condition than they now
are.”
Professor Huxley, in the Nineteenth Century, No. 144,
pp. 178-186, points out that Christians have no right to
force their idealistic portraits of Jesus on the unbiassed
scientific world, whose business it is to study realities and
to separate fiction from fact. The Professor’s words are :
“ In the course of other inquiries, I have had to do with
fossil remains, which looked quite plain at a distance, and
became more and more indistinct as I tried to define their
outline by close inspection. There was something there—
�8
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
something which, if I could win assurance about it, might
mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as
long as I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So has it
been with me in my efforts to define the grand figure of
Jesus as it lies in the primitive strata of Christian litera
ture. Is he the kindly, peaceful Christ depicted in the
catacombs 1 Or is he the stern judge who frowns above
the altar of Saints Cosmas and Damianus ? Or can he be
rightly represented in the bleeding ascetic broken down by
physical pain of too many mediaeval pictures ? Are we to
accept the Jesus of the second or the Jesus of the fourth
Gospel as the true Jesus ? What did he really say and do ?
and how much that is attributed to him in speech and
action is the embroidery of the various parties into which
his followers tended to split themselves within twenty
years of his death, when even the three-fold tradition was
only nascent ? .... If a man can find a friend, the
hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in
the Jesus of any or all of the Gospels, let him live by faith
in that ideal. Who shall, or can, forbid him ? But let
him not delude himself that his faith is evidence of the
objective reality of that in which he trusts. Such evidence
is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of science
as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts, at
present, to very little.”
Equally emphatic are the remarks of John Vickers, the
author of The New Koran, etc., who, in his work, The Real
Jesus, on pp. 160, 161, writes: “Many popular preachers
at the present day are accustomed to hold Jesus up to
admiration as the special friend of the poor-—that is, as
the benefactor of the humble working class, and their
representations to this effect are doubtless very generally
believed. But a greater delusion respecting him than this
can scarcely be imagined ; for, however much he may have
been disposed to favor those who forsook their industrial
calling and led a vagrant life, his preaching and the course
which he took were prejudicial to all who honestly earned
their bread. He did nothing with his superior wisdom to
develop the resources of the country and provide employ
ment for the poor; all his efforts were directed to the
unhinging of industry, the diminution of wealth, and the
promotion of universal idleness and beggary. It was no
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
9
part of his endeavor to see the peasant and the artisan
better remunerated and more comfortably housed, for he
despised domestic comforts as much as Diogenes, and
believed that their enjoyment would disqualify people for
obtaining the everlasting pleasures of Paradise. A
provident working man who had managed to save enough
for a few months’ subsistence he would have classed with
the covetous rich, and required him to give away in alms
all that he had treasured as the indispensable condition
of discipleship. On one occasion he is said to have
distributed food liberally to the hungry multitude; but
the food was none of his providing, since he was him
self dependent on alms. Moreover, the recipients of his
bounty were not a band of ill-fed laborers returning from
work/not a number of distressed farmers who had suffered
heavy losses from murrain or drought, but a loafing crowd
who had followed him about from place to place, and
spent the day in idleness. Such bestowment of largess
would only tend to produce a further relaxation of
industrial effort; it would induce credulous peasants, to
throw down their tools and follow the wonder-working
prophet for the chance of a meal; they would see little
wisdom in plodding at their tasks from day to day, like
the ants and the bees, if people were to be fed by
wandering about trustfully for what should turn up, as the
idle, improvident ravens (Prov. vi. 6 ; Luke xii. 24).”
Many eminent Christian writers maintain that Jesus was
a social reformer, because he is represented as having, been
in favor of dispensing with the private ownership of
property, and also of people living together, enjoying what
is called “ a common repast.” Professor Graetz, in the
second volume of his able History of the Jews, devotes a
chapter to the social practices which prevailed at the time
when Jesus is alleged to have lived. On page 117 he
states that Christianity was really an offshoot from the
principles held by the Essenes, and that Christ inherited
their aversion to Pharisaical laws, while he approved of
their practice of putting their all into the common treasury.
Further, like them, Jesus highly esteemed self-imposed
poverty, and despised riches. In fact, we are told that
the “ community of goods, which was a peculiar doctrine
of the Essenes, was not only approved, but enforced.............
�10
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
The repasts they shared in common formed, as it were, the
connecting link which attached the followers of Jesus to
one another; and the alms distributed by the rich publicans
relieved the poor disciples of the fear of hunger; and this
bound them still more strongly to Jesus.” But Graetz
also adds that Christ thoroughly shared the narrow views
held by the Judaeans of his time, and that he despised the
heathen world. Thus he said : “ Give not that which is
holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you ” (Matt. vii. 6). If this is “ Christian
Socialism,” it is far from being catholic in its nature. The
Socialistic element of having “all things in common ” was
limited by Christ to one particular community ; it lacked
that universality necessary to all real social reforms. It
was similar to his idea of the brotherhood of man. Those
only were his brothers who believed in him. He desired
no fellowship with those who did not accept his faith;
hence he exclaimed : “ If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them,
and cast them into the fire, and they are burned ” (John xv.
6); “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou
hast given me ” (John xvii. 9); “But he that denieth me
before men shall be denied before the angels of God ”
(Luke xii. 9); “ He that believeth not shall be damned ”
(Mark xvi. 16). This may be the teaching of theology, but
it is not indicative of a broad humanity, neither would it,
if acted upon, tend to promote the social welfare of mankind.
. Professor Graham, M.A., of Belfast College, contends, in
his work, Socialism: Olcl and New, that Christ taught
“ Communism ” when he preached “ Blessed be ye poor,”
when “ he repeatedly denounced ” the rich, and when he
recommended the wealthy young man to voluntarily
surrender his property to the poor. The Professor also
says: “ In spite of certain passages to the contrary,
pointing in a different direction, the Gospels are pervaded
with the spirit of Socialism ”; but he adds : “ It is not quite
State Socialism, because the better society was to be
brought about by the voluntary union of believers.” He
admits, however, that “ the ideal has hitherto been found
impossible; but let not any say that it does not exist in
the Gospels—that Christ did not contemplate an earthly
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
11
society.” Now this last point is just what could be fairly
urged, if the Gospels were trustworthy. There can be no
reasonable doubt that the disregard of mundane duties
would be the logical sequence of acting up to many of the
teachings ascribed to Jesus. For instance, he said, “My
kingdom is not of this world ” (John xviii. 36). “He that
loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in
this world shall keep it unto life eternal” (John xii. 25).
“ I am not of the world ” (John xvii. 9). “ Take no. thought
for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink; nor
yet for your body what ye shall put on. . . . Take there
fore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take
thought for the things of itself ” (Matthew vi. 25, 34). “ If
any man comes to me and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life, he cannot be my disciple ” (Luke xiv. 26).
“Everyone 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 hundred fold, and shall
inherit everlasting life” (Matthew xix. 29). Even the
disciple who wished to bury his father was advised by
Christ to forego that duty of affection, for “Jesus said,
Follow me ; let the dead bury the dead.”
The fact is, Christ was a spiritualiser, and not a social
reformer. If he had been to his age what Bacon and
Newton were to theirs, and what Darwin, Spencer, Huxley,
and Tyndall have been to the present generation ; if he had
written a book teaching men how to avoid the miseries of
life; if he had revealed the mysteries of nature, and
exhibited the beauties of the arts and sciences, what an
advantage he would have conferred upon mankind, and
what an important contribution he would have given to
the world towards solving the problems of our present
social wrongs and inequalities. But the usefulness of Jesus
was impaired by the idea which he entertained, that this
world was but a state of probation, wherein the human
family were to be prepared for another and a better home,
where “ the wicked cease from troubling and the weary
are at rest.”
We have thus seen the views of the scientist, the
historian, and the professor, upon the subject under con
sideration ; it will now be interesting to learn what one
�12
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
of the successors to the apostles has to say in reference
to the same question. B. F. Westcott, D.D., the present
Bishop of Durham, in his work, Social Aspects of Christianity,
says : “Of all places in the world, the Abbey, I think,
proclaims the social gospel of Christ with the most touch
ing eloquence. ... If I am a Christian, I must bring
within the range of my religion every interest and difficulty of man, ‘ for other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ ”
This is not by any means correct, for many other
“foundations,” which have nothing to do with Christ,
have been laid, and upon them systems, some good and
some bad, have been built. For instance, there are
Individualism, Socialism, material standards of progress,
unlimited competition, and the application of science.
These are “ other foundations ” that men have had apart
altogether from Christ. But the solution to present social
evils, Dr. Westcott considers, is to be found only in the
Christian faith. He says : “ We need to show the world
the reality of spiritual power. We need to gain and
exhibit the idea that satisfies the thoughts, the aspirations,
the aims of men straining towards the light.” He admits
that science has increased our power and resources; but, he
adds, it “ cannot open the heavens and show the glory of
God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” Of
course it cannot; for science has nothing to do with
the impossible, or with the wild speculations of theology.
In the Social Aspects of Christianity, as presented by the
Bishop, it would be difficult, indeed, to recognise the
principles of true Socialism. Moreover, as it is admitted
by him that science has increased our “power and
resources,” it is a proof that Jesus must have been a poor
reformer, when we remember that he did nothing what
ever to aid this strong element of modern progress.
From the references which I have here made to some of
the ablest writers of to-day, it will be seen how Jesus is
estimated by them. I now propose to analyse the various
statements which, according to the Four Gospels, were
uttered by him, that have any bearing upon the political
and social questions of our time. It will then be seen
whether Christ has any claim to be considered a political
and social reformer.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
13
That the political views held by Jesus were exceed
ingly crude is evident from the circumstance recorded in
Matthew xxii. It is there stated that, on finding a coin of
the realm bearing the superscription of Caesar, Jesus
declared that both Caesar and God were to have their due.
The very pertinent question put by the disciples afforded
a good opportunity for some sound advice to be given upon
the political subjection in which the people to whom Christ
was talking were living. They were in bondage to a
foreign power, and were anxious to know if it were
“lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not.” Instead of
returning a clear and intelligible answer, Jesus replied in
words which were evasive and meaningless, so far as the
information sought for was concerned. If he had any
desire to alter the then existing political, relations, or. to
suggest any improvement, he might have given a practical
lesson upon the duties and obligations of the ruled to the
rulers. Another opportunity was lost when, Pilate having
asked Christ an important question, “ Jesus gave him no
answer” (John xix. 9).
Subsequently, however, Jesus recognised the “divine
government,” for he said : “ Thou couldst have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above.”
(John xix. 11). He also, having stated, “My kingdom is
not of this world,” added : “ If my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews.” Christ s notions of government
were similar to those of St. Paul, who said: “The
powers that be are ordained of God. . .. . and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation (Romans xiii.
1, 2).
Now, in the very face of these scriptural utterances, we
have men to-day who allege that Christ is their hero of
democracy. The belief that he ever intended to. improve
the government of this world by secular means is utterly
groundless. His negligence in this particular cannot be
explained away by saying that society was not ripe for
reform, and that Jesus lacked the power to revolutionise
the institutions of his time. There is truth, no doubt, in
the latter allegation, for the power of Christ for all practical
work seems to have been very limited indeed. He did not
attempt any political reform, as other men in all ages have-
�14
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
done; he did not make honest endeavors to inaugurate
improvements which, under happier circumstances, might
have been carried out. There is no evidence that Christ
ever concerned himself with such reforms as civil and
religious liberty, the freedom of the slaves, the equality
of human rights, the emancipation of women, the spread of
science and of education, the proper use of the land, and the
fostering of the fundamental elements of human progress.
His language was : “ Behold the fowls of the air : for they
sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns ; yet
your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much
better than they ? And why take ye thought for raiment ?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil
not, neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you, That
even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of
these. Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field,
which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall
he not much more clothe you, 0 ye of little faith ? But
seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Christ’s declaration that his kingdom was not of this
world may be taken as a reason why he made no adequate
provision for secular government; but those who worship
him assert that his plan is the only one that can be success
fully adopted to secure the desired reforms, and that he
really did contemplate a better state of society on earth
than the one that then obtained. Where is the evidence
that this was so 1 Not in the New Testament, for it is
nowhere recorded therein that such was his mission. With
him the question was : “ For what shall it profit a man if
he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?” Even
Renan, who is so frequently quoted by Christian advocates
as extolling Jesus, admits that he lacked the qualities of a
great political and social reformer. In his Life of Jesus
Renan says that Christ had “ no knowledge of the general
condition of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with
science, “ believed in the devil, and that diseases were the
work of demons” (pp. 79, 80); he was “harsh” towards
s family, and was “no philosopher” (pp. 81-83); he
“went to excess” (p. 174); he “aimed less at logical
conviction than at enthusiasm”; “sometimes his intolerance
of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and apparently
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
15
absurd” (pp. 274, 275); and “bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart” (p. 278.)
But let us further consider what it is said that he taught
in reference to life’s social requirements, and also what was
his estimate of the world and the things of the world.
Under any system conducted upon rational principles the
first social requirement is to provide for sufficient food,
clothes, and shelter; for to talk of comfort and progress
without these requisites is absurd. Now, it was about
these very things that Jesus, as it has already been shown,
taught that we should take no thought. In Matthew (c. vi.)
special reference is made to the Gentiles who did take
thought as to the necessities of life ; but other people were
not to be anxious upon the subject, “ for your Heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things,” and
a promise is given that he will provide them as he
“ feedeth ” “ the fowls of the air.” Poverty and idleness
were essentials to Christ’s idea of a social state, as is proved
by his advice to the rich young man, to whom he said:
“ If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor” (Matthew xix. 21). In John (vi. 27) it
is also said : “ Labor not for the meat which perisheth.”
What wealthy Christian will sell what he has and give to
the poor, and thus carry out Christ’s idea of social duties ?
And if the toiling millions did not labor for their meat,
they would get but little of it. It is not overlooked
that Jesus said to the young man, “and follow me”;
which meant, I presume, that he was to join the Chris
tian society in which they had “all things common”
(Acts iv.). But this state of existence could only be
maintained by giving up all one’s possessions and adding
them to the general stock. If all did this, the stock would
be soon exhausted. And the point here to be noted is, that
in Christ’s scheme no provision is made to provide for a
permanent mode of living, except by prayer or miracle.
Surely it must be obvious to most people that a
communion of saints, fed directly by God, could not be any
solution of the social problem for those outside such
communities Besides, there is little prospect of outsiders
being made partakers with the saints, unless God the
Father draws them unto Christ (John vi. 44); but no one
can go to the Father except by Christ (John xiv. 6).
�16
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Thus our chances of admission into the Christian fold are
very remote, for if we are admitted it must be through
Christ, to whom we cannot go unless the Father draws us ;
but then we cannot go to the Father except by Christ.
This is a theological puzzle, which must be left for a
“ Christian Socialist ” to unravel if he can.
The belief that a social condition of society is sustained
by an invisible power, where no labor is performed, and
where no interest is taken in its progress, or in the dignity
and personal independence of its members, is the height of
folly. It implies the destruction of all human institutions,
and the substitution of a “divinely-ordered state of
things,” such as some of Christ’s followers allege they are
now hourly expecting. Well might the late Bishop of
Peterborough say : “ It is not possible for the State to
carry out all the precepts of Christ. A State that
attempted to do so could not exist for a week. If there be
any person who maintains the contrary, his proper place is
in a lunatic asylum ” (Fortnightly, January, 1890).
The Sermon on the Mount, or “in the plain,” as
stated by Luke (vi. 17), has been called the. Magna Charta
of the kingdom of God, proclaimed by Christ, although it
has never been made the basis of any human government.
Its injunctions are so impracticable and antagonistic to. the
requirements of modern civilisation that no serious
attempt has ever been made to put them in practice.
It may be mentioned that the genuineness of the “ Sermon ”
has been boldly questioned. Professor Huxley writes:
“I am of opinion that there is the gravest reason for
doubting whether the Sermon on the Mount was ever
preached, and whether the so-called Lord’s Prayer was
ever prayed by Jesus of Nazareth” (Controverted Questions,
p. 415). The Professor then gives his reasons for arriving
at this conclusion.
The Rev. Dr. Giles, in his Christian Records, speaking of
the Sermon on the Mount, says : “ There is good ground
for believing that such a collective body of maxims was
never, at any time, delivered from the lips of our.Lord’;
and Milman declares that scarcely any passage is more
perplexing to the harmonist of the Gospels than this
sermon, which, according to Matthew and Luke, appears to
have been delivered at two different places.
�*S-'
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
17
Mr. Charles B. Cooper, a very able American writer,
aptly observes: “If this discourse is so important, as
Christians profess to believe—the sum of all the teachings
of Jesus, and the sufficient source of all morality—it is
curious that Mark and John knew nothing about it, and
that Luke should dismiss it with such a short report.
Luke, omitting the larger part of the matter, takes only
one page to tell what occupies three pages in Matthew;
and to find any parallel to much of Matthew we have to go
to other chapters of Luke and to other occasions. In
addition to which, they disagree as to whether it was given
on a mountain or in a plain.”
Taking a broad view of the teachings as ascribed to
Christ, I should describe most of them as being the result
of emotion rather than the outcome of matured reflection.
They are based upon faith, not upon knowledge, trust in
Providence being the cornerstone of his system, so far as
his fragmentary utterances can be systematised. In my
opinion, the idea of his being a political and social reformer
rests upon an entirely mistaken view of the union of what
are termed temporal and spiritual things. Examples of this
maybe seen in such injunctions as “Love one another ”
and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The first was
clearly applicable to the followers of Christ, for he
expressly states, “ By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples” (John xiii. 35); and the second command
applied only to the Jewish community, not to strangers
who lived outside. These injunctions did not mean that
those who heard them were to love all mankind. Christ
himself divided those who were for him from those who
were against him. To the first he said, “ Come, ye blessed
of my father ”; to the other, “ Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
It has always appeared to me to be remarkably strange
that Christ should be regarded as the exemplar of universal
love. Neither his own words, nor the conduct of his
followers, justify such a belief. It is, of course, desirable
that a social state of society should be based upon love and
the universal brotherhood of man. This is the avowed
foundation of the religion of the Positivists, their motto
being, “Love our basis, order our method, and progress
our end”; but no such commendable features are to be
B
�18
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
found in the Gospel of Christ, or in the history of the
Church. Jesus declared that his mission was only to “the
lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew xv. 24).
Moreover, the conditions of discipleship which he imposed
would, if complied with, exclude the possibility of love
among all men (Luke xiv. 26); as would also his avowed
object of breaking the peace and harmony of the domestic
circle (Matthew x. 34, 35). It may be said that such are
the contingencies attending the belief and adoption of a
new religion. Be it so; but that only shows the futility
of the contention that Christ established universal brother
hood. It is absurd to argue that he did so, when we are
told in the Gospels that his mission was to the Jews only
(Matthew xv. 24); that he would have no fellowship with
unbelievers (Matthew xv. 26); that he threatened to have
his revenge upon those who denied him (Matthew x. 33);
that he instructed his disciples to “go not into the way of
the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not” (Matthew x. 5); and, finally, that he commanded
those disciples, when they were about to start on a
preaching expedition, that “Whosoever shall not receive
you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that
house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I
say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for
that city” (Matthew x. 14, 15). Shaking the dust from
the feet, be it remembered, was an Oriental custom of
exhibiting hatred towards those against whom the act was
performed. And surely the punishment that it is said was
to follow the refusal of the disciples’ administration was
the very opposite of the manifestation of love. This
accords with the non-loving announcement that “ the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the
glory of his power” (2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9).
These references ought to be sufficient to convince any
one that Jesus cannot be reasonably credited with a
feeling of unqualified love for the whole of the human
race. His conduct, and the general spirit of his teachings
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
19
towards those who differed from him, forbid such a
supposition. His injunctions, if acted upon, would annul
the influence of the ancient maxim of “ doing unto others
as you would they should do to you.” Certainly he failed
to set a personal example by complying with this rule, as
his harsh language to those who did not accept his
authority amply proves. It is reported that Jesus said
(Matthew v. 22), “ Whosoever shall say Thou fool shall be
in danger of hell fire”; yet we find him exclaiming, “Ye
fools, ye fools and blind” (Lukexi. 40; Matthewxxiii. 17).
He advised others to “Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you,” while he himself addressed those who were not
his friends as “hypocrites ” (Matthew vii. 5); “ye serpents,
ye generation of vipers ” (Matthew xxiii. 33). We may
here apply Christ’s own words to himself: “I say unto
you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy
words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned ” (Matthew xii. 36, 37). In Luke (vi. 37)
he counsels us to “forgive, and ye shall be forgiven ”; but
in Mark (iii. 29) it is stated, “He that shall blaspheme
against the Holy G-host hath never forgiveness, but is in
danger of eternal damnation.” The unfortunate point here
is, that we are not told what constitutes blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost.
From these cases, and there are many more in the
Gospels of like nature, it is clear that Jesus taught one
thing and practised another—a course of conduct which
his followers have not been slow to emulate. But such an
inconsistent trait of character disqualifies those in whom it
is found from being the best of social reformers. Example
is higher than precept.
Whatever may be urged in favor of Christ’s supposed
“ spiritual kingdom,” his teachings have but little value in
regulating the political and social affairs of daily life, using
those terms in the modern and legitimate sense, inasmuch
as he has given the world no practical information upon
either the science of politics or of sociology. The affairs of
this world had but little interest with Christ. With him
pre-eminence was given to the soul over the body. We are
not to fear him who can kill the body only, but rather fear
him “ who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell ”
�20
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
(Matthew x. 28). Here we recognise the great defect in
Jesus as a societarian reformer. He treats this world as if
it were of secondary importance, and he furnishes no useful
rules for its practical government. True he says, “ Blessed
are ye poor,” and “Woe unto you that are rich but what
does this amount to ? These empty exclamations will not
abolish pauperism, neither will they produce the organisation
of honest industry, whereby human wants can be supplied
and social comforts secured. Would it not have been
better if Jesus had devised some plan whereby poverty
should become extinct ?
To talk, as Professor Graham does, about producing a
better state of society by a “ union of believers ” is, in my
opinion, folly. How is it to be done ? Every member of
“ the union ” would have to live on the alms of the wealthy
members. It would, in fact, be a society of the destitute
supported by voluntary contributions. Surely no sane
Socialists ever proposed to divide mankind into two
classes—z.e., paupers and those who feed them. We know
what the result of such a policy was in the case of the
Church. As the Professor says, the Church obtained the
funds of the rich in return for certain considerations which
were supposed to affect them in this world and in the next;
and out of such proceeds the clergy distributed bread to
the poor and kept something better for themselves. Thus
Europe for centuries was infested by fat, idle monks . and
an army of miserable beggars. A more detestable condition
of society to men of honor and independent spirit never
existed. Yet this “ Christian plan ” finds favor, as we have
seen, in “ the Abbey,” and is really the necessary outcome of
Christ’s mendicant teachings. For did he not allege that
the poor were blessed, and that “ ye hath the poor always
with you” (Matthew xxvi. 11)? If he contemplated that
the period would arrive when “it should be impossible for
men to be poor,” why did he not give some practical
instructions to hasten its advent ? This would have been
a o-rand contribution to social reform. But his overwhelm
ing anxiety about another life was, with him, the “one
thing needful,” and to it every other consideration had to
give way.
.
I am quite unable to understand how anyone can mistake
the obvious meaning of the parable in which the rich man
u-*** yMita
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
21
appears in hell and the poor man in heaven (Luke
xvi. 19-26). The only assigned reason is that the one was
well-to-do in this life, while the other suffered privations.
This is no justification for either of the men being where
they are represented to have been. For poverty is no
virtue, neither is it a crime to be rich. Men of wealth can
be worthy characters, and poverty may be allied with
much rascality. The wrong does not consist in possessing
riches, but rather in the misuse of them; and, therefore, to
be poor does not seem the highest qualification for future
bliss, and to be rich is not a sufficient cause for anyone
being excluded from an abode of happiness. But this
parable is another illustration of Christ’s exaltation of
poverty. He even dispatched his disciples on a mission of
propaganda, without scrip, money, or purse, to beg their
way through the world (Luke x. 7-10). Is this the highest
model that can be given for a mission to the poor ? It is
thought so little of to-day, even by professed Christians,
that they never adopt the plan suggested by their
“ Master.” They may preach “ Blessed be ye poor,” but
they have no desire to be one of them. They read the
warning, “Woe unto you that are rich; for ye have
received your consolation ” (Luke vi. 24); but they appear
to be exceedingly comfortable with their material consola
tion. “ A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” and
they are consoled more with the riches of this world than
with the chance of having a harp in the next. In the case
of the rich young man (Luke xviii.) it is true Christ
advised the giving up of private property; but it is also
true that the advice was not deemed practical, for the
young man “went away sorrowful” (Matthew xix. 22).
Supposing he had accepted the advice, he would then
have swelled the ranks of the poor unemployed, and
thereby have become the recipient rather than the bene
factor, although it is recorded that “it is more blessed to
give than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). The giving up all
one’s possessions would be as injurious to a community as
the amassing of wealth by the few is pernicious.
What is required is a social arrangement whereby all
members of the community shall have their fair share of
the necessities and comforts of life ; and this arrangement
Christ did not understand, or, if he did, he made no effort
�99!
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
to bring it into force, and consequently he lacked the
elements of a true social reformer.
There is an incident recorded in Luke (xii.) which shows
that Christ refused to say anything upon the subjects of
property, civil rights, and law and government. “ One of
the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother,
that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto
him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you ?”
Here Jesus had an opportunity, as a social reformer, to
give the world an important lesson upon the duty of one
man to another; but he did not avail himself of it. He
acted more like a modern lawyer would do, who, when
asked by a stranger to give him advice, would reply: “I
am not your appointed solicitor ; if you want information,
you must consult your own legal adviser.”
The parable of “ the rich man who set up greater barns,”
related in Luke (xii.), is another illustration of Christ’s
defective teachings in reference to the affairs of this life.
The man in the parable proposed to enlarge his premises so
that he might be able to put by increased stock of fruits
and goods, and thus be in a position to take his “ ease, eat,
drink, and be merry.” There does not appear to be any
great crime in this, for he lacked room wherein to bestow
his fruits, etc. (v. 17). Surely there could be no serious
objection to making such careful provision for “a rainy
day.” Such conduct is frequently necessary to the advance
ment of personal comfort and general civilisation. Have
not Christians in all ages, since their advent, done the
same thing, when they have had the opportunity ? Layingup treasures on earth, although forbidden by Christ, is
often an effective precaution against starvation, and against
being in old age the slave of charity. But for doing this
very thing the man was told : “ Thou fool, this night thy
soul shall be required of thee ; then whose shall those
things be which thou hast provided ?” (v. 20). Jesus then
said, “ Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat,” etc. Here we have the prominent
Christian requirement of making the duties of this world
subservient to the demands of a future existence put forth
by one who is claimed as being a model social reformer.
If it is alleged that Christ meant that the man in the parable
should have distributed his fruits and goods rather than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
23
store them up, the reply is, the account does not say so.
Why did not Christ, instead of making heaven the principal
consideration, point out the evil influence of the monopoly
of wealth upon human society ? The social problems cannot
be solved by indulging in speculations as to another world,
of which we have had no experience. The principle sought
to be enforced in this parable is evidently that the soul is
of more importance than the body, and that heaven is of
greater value than earth. Thoughtlessness of the things of
time is directly encouraged by reference to the ravens :
“ For they neither sow nor reap; which neither have store
house nor barn; and God feedeth them ” (v. 24).
It is worthy of note that Jesus never once intimated
throughout his career, either by direct statement or
illustration, that this world was the noblest and most
desirable dwelling place for man, and that it was the home
of social felicity and mutual happiness. His heart and
home were in his Father’s house, whither he went to
prepare a place for his followers, to whom he gave a
promise that he would come and receive them unto
himself (John xiv. 2, 3). So little did Christ understand
the philosophy of secular reform that when he condemned
covetousness (which was very laudable upon his part) it
was because he thought it interfered with the preparation
for inhabiting “mansions in the skies,” rather than in
consequence of its effects upon homes on earth. He
entirely overlooked the agencies that promote human
comfort. The means that have been employed to produce
and to advance civilisation received from him no matured
consideration. If every word attributed to him had been
left unuttered, not one feature of modern progress would be
missing to-day. Let anyone carefully read, with an
unbiassed mind, the four Gospels, and then ask himself the
questions : What philosophic truth did Jesus propound ?
What scientific fact did he explain ? What social problem
did he solve ? What political scheme did he unfold 1 The
New Testament does not inform us. On the contrary,
while other men, with less pretensions than himself, were
active in giving the world their thoughts upon these great
questions, Jesus remained silent in reference to them. It
is no answer to say that to deal with the subjects was not
his mission. For, if he came simply to talk about another
�24
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
world, at the sacrifice of the requirements of this, then my
contention is made good that, whatever else he was, he
certainly was no political and social reformer.
It appears to me that the gospel of Christ is a very poor
one for any practical purposes, inasmuch as it never deals
with the material comforts of human beings. It does not
suggest any means by which the poor could obtain that
power by which they could secure the amelioration of their
sad condition. It is not here overlooked that Christ is
credited with saying that those who sought the “Kingdom
of God ” should have food, drink, etc., added unto them
(Luke xii.). But, unfortunately, experience teaches that
such a promise cannot be relied upon, for it is too well
known that many of those persons who occupied much of
their time in seeking the kingdom of God remained
destitute of the necessaries of life. It was during the
prevalence of this superstitious belief, and of an un
reasonable reliance upon Christ, that personal misery and
intellectual sterility prevailed throughout the land. For
many generations the indiscriminate followers of Jesus
failed to give the world any new thought, or to establish
any new political or social institution; and from the
Church nothing of practical secular value emanated during
the fifteen centuries of its uninterrupted reign. This,
however, is not all that can be fairly urged upon this
point. The followers of Christ not only failed to originate
any social scheme for the good of general society them
selves, but they did their utmost to crush those who did.
It appears almost incredible that such persistent efforts
were ever made to extinguish every new thought as those
recorded of Christians, when they had the power to do as
they pleased. New books were despised and destroyed,
and new inventions were said to be the work of the Devil.
True happiness cannot co-exist with physical slavery and
mental serfdom, and yet, it must be repeated, Jesus did
nothing to remove these evils. His apathy towards the
institution of slavery is the more strange if we accept the
authority of Gratz, that Christ was connected with the
Essenes, and that, to some extent, he founded his system
upon theirs. By that community slavery, we are told,
was prohibited ; yet we read that both bond and free were
one in Christ Jesus. Is not this striking evidence that
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
25
Jesus had no intention to seek the removal of this inhuman
blot from the history of our race 1
Those persons to-day who desire to establish a relation
ship between Socialism and Christianity dwell with much
persistency upon Christ’s views as to the division of
property. But let us see what are the facts of the case.
Jesus told those who were willing to leave their homes,
families, and lands for his “ sake and the Gospels ”
(Mark x.), that they should receive “an hundredfold” of
each in this world, besides “ eternal life in the world to
come.” Now, this is ridiculous in the extreme ; for what
possible advantage could it be to any one to have his or
her relatives multiplied a hundredfold ? Besides, where
could Christ get either a hundred mothers to replace
every one that had been forsaken, or a hundred acres of
land to compensate for each one that had been given up ?
And even supposing he could do this, what becomes of the
theory of despising landed possessions ? Moreover, if the
smaller number and quantity were a drawback, the larger
must be more so. Further, there is but little self-denial
involved in parting with ten acres of land to secure a
thousand. It is really surprising that the Jews did not
“ catch on ” in this matter. Probably they saw that it
was all a sham, because Christ had no means of keeping
his promise. Where were the houses, land, etc., to come
from ? Evidently Christ had none, for he appears to have
been entirely destitute of all worldly goods, having “ not
where to lay his head” (Matthew viii. 20). Would not
such an augmentation of property be antagonistic to the
principle Jesus taught on another occasion, when he said
“ lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ”
(Matthew vi.) ? No marvel that his friends thought he
was “beside himself” (Mark iii. 21), or that the Jews
considered “he hath a devil, and is mad” (John x. 20),
and that “ neither did his brethren believe in him ”
(John vii. 5). If any man at the present time dealt with
the question of property in the same way as Christ is here
represented to have done, he would not be regarded as a
social reformer, but rather as a man whose intellect was
far from being brilliant, and whose ideas were exceedingly
confused. Christ’s reply to the high priest, who asked
him the question, “ Art thou the Christ, the Son of the
�26
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Blessed?” (Mark xiv. 61), is, to my mind, clear evidence
that he was neither the political nor the social Messiah
that some persons allege him to have been. His reply
was, “ 1 am; and he shall see the son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
Does not this accord with his statement, “ I am not of the
world,” and “ my kingdom is not of this world ” 1 Should
not this settle at once, as a fact, that the mission of Jesus
was not to be the founder of an earthly government, or
the promoter of a mundane social system ?
As to the idea that Christ will come, as he said, “in the
clouds,” that relates to the future, and has no bearing upon
the present inquiry, the results of which will not be affected
by either the fulfilment or the failure of that prediction.
The question is not what will be, but rather what Christ
did to entitle him to be classified as a secular reformer.
Professor Graham, as we have seen, admits that Christ did
not inaugurate State Socialism, but that he only proposed
a sort of friendly society among Christians themselves. In
doing even this, however, he showed himself sadly defective
in the knowledge necessary to a real reformer. There exists
to-day in this country an old-established Christian sect,
termed Quakers, who keep a common treasury for the
purpose of aiding those of their numbers who are in need.
But, be it observed, they fill their treasury by industry and
the result of laboring “ for the meat which perisheth,” the
very thing that Jesus forbade. The method of the Quakers
is a very charitable one, for it prevents their poorer
members from going to the workhouse, or from begging in
the streets, as other Christians are so often forced to do.
They are enabled, by this plan'of industry and of “ taking
thought for the morrow,” to preserve their dignity and
self-respect, and to receive all the advantages of assistance
without being branded as paupers, who have to forfeit
many rights in consequence of their poverty. This scheme
of mutual aid is not based upon Christ’s advice to “ forsake
all,’’.under the insane idea that they will be kept alive, upon
the same principle that the ravens and the lilies of the field
are; on the contrary, among the Quakers all who can both
“toil and spin.” Jesus, in his method, counselled no sort
of thrift, nor made any provision for the time of need.
There is no record, that I am aware of, that any society of
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
27
men ever lived upon help from heaven without labor, and
due care being taken for the requirements of life. Certainly
such a society does not exist in “ Christian England.”
The burden of Christ’s preaching was, “ Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” What was meant by this
kingdom it is rather difficult to decide, for it is variously
described in the Gospels. It is certain, however, that,
whether it signified the reign of peace and justice on
earth, or the appearance of Jesus “in the clouds,” neither
event has taken place up to date, although Christ said that
in his time the kingdom was “ at hand.” In Luke (xvii. 21)
it is stated “ the kingdom of God is within you ”; but that
does not quite harmonise with the description given of it
in Matthew (xiii. 47-50), where it is alleged that the
kingdom of heaven is “ like unto a net that was cast into
the sea,” which, when full, had the good of its contents
retained, and the bad cast away. “ So shall it be at the
end of the world,” when the angels are to “ sever the wicked
from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace
of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Now, if this refers to a condition upon earth, it is not a
very happy one. And in neither case is there any light
thrown upon the rational conduct of men, either politically or
socially. Besides, the repeated references made by Christ
to the approaching end of all earthly institutions render
the idea of his being a reformer of this world altogether
meaningless. The termination of mundane affairs was to
occur in the presence of those to whom Jesus was speaking
(Matthew xvi. 28). Whatever other texts may be cited to
the contrary, the meaning here is clear, that no opportunity
was to be given, and no provisions made, to reform the
political and social conditions of earth. Let any one read
the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and try to harmonise
the declarations there ascribed to Christ with the belief that
his mission was to reform the world, and the impossibility
of the task will soon be evident. True, in Matthew (xxv.)
works of utility are required to secure a place at the
“right hand” of God. But what does this involve?
Uniformity of belief (Mark xvi. 16), and only the relief,
not the cure, of poverty. No scheme was even hinted at
by Christ whereby the great army of the poor and
depraved should be impossible. He was inferior to the
�28
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
French philosopher, who aimed at providing a condition of
society wherein men should be neither depraved nor poor.
To put the matter concisely, what are the factors of
political and social progress ? Briefly, they are these:
The cultivation of the intellect, the extension of physical
and mental freedom, the recognition and the application of
the principle of justice and liberty to all members of the
community, regardless of their belief or non-belief in
theology, the knowledge and application of science and
art, the organisation of labor and the proper cultivation of
the soil, the possession of political power, the under
standing of the true value and use of wealth, and, finally,
the persistent study of, and the constant struggling against,
the numerous evils, wrongs, and injustice that now rob life
of its comforts and real worth. These are the agencies
that all men, who claim to be political and social reformers,
should support and cultivate. Not one of these originated
with Jesus, and throughout his career he never availed
himself of these essentials of all progress. Thus, to
designate him as the great social redeemer is entirely
unjustifiable. His very mode of living was the opposite to
that of a practical reformer. He was an ascetic, and
avoided as much as possible the turmoil of public life,
from which he might have learnt something of what was
necessary to adjust the social relations. Prayer, not work,
was his habit. In the day, and at night, would he retire
to the solitude of the mountain, and there pray to his
father (Luke vi. 12 and xxi. 37). So far did he believe in
the efficacy of supplications to God that he frequently told
his disciples that whatever they asked of his father he
would grant the request (Matthew xviii. 19 ; xxi. 22;
John xvi. 23). That this was a delusion is clear from the
fact that he prayed himself for the unity of Christendom,
that his followers might be one (John xvii. 21); yet from
his time down to the present divisions have always existed
among Christians. He distinctly promised that “What
soever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do” (John
xiv. 13, 14). Relying upon this, the Church for centuries
has been asking that unbelief should cease, and yet we find
it more extensive to-day than it ever was. The lesson
learnt from experience is, that all reforms are the result of
active work, not the outcome of prayerful meditations.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
29
With all these drawbacks in the character of Jesus, it is
to me marvellous how he can be accepted as a model for us
in the present age. But thousands of his devotees insist
upon claiming him as their Ideal, although they cannot
regulate their conduct by such a standard. Such persons
overlook the fact that, if the better parts of an Ideal are
marred by that which is erroneous and impracticable, it is
comparatively useless as a guide in life. That Christ’s
alleged teachings are so marred the Gospels amply testify.
His conduct, on several occasions, was such as his
followers would not attempt to emulate to-day. Such, for
instance, as his treatment of his parents (Luke ii. 43-49 ;
John ii. 4); his cursing of the fig-tree (Matthew xxi. 18, 19);
his driving the money changers from the temple with “ a
scourge of small cards ” (John ii. 15); his possession of an
ass and a colt, which evidently did not belong to him, and
riding upon both of them into Jerusalem (Matthew xxi.
2-11); his expletives to the Pharisees (Luke xi. 37-44); his
breaking up the peace of the domestic circle (Matthew x.
34-36).
Judged by the New Testament, Christ was certainly not
“The Light of the World,” for he revealed nothing of
practical value, and he taught no virtues that were before
unknown. No doubt in his life, supposing he ever lived,
there were many commendable features; but he was far
from being perfect. While he might have been wellmeaning, he was in belief superstitious, in conduct
inconsistent, in opinions contradictory, in teaching arbi
trary, in knowledge deficient, in faith vacillating, and in
pretensions great. He taught false notions of existence,
had no knowledge of science; he misled his followers by
claiming to be what he was not, and he deceived himself
by his own credulity. He lacked experimental force,
frequently living a life of isolation, and taking but slight
interest in the affairs of this world. It is this lack of
experimental force throughout the career of Christ that
renders his notions of domestic duties so thoroughly
imperfect. The happiness of a family, according to his
teaching, was to be impaired before his doctrines could be
accepted. So far as we know, he was never a husband or a
father ; and he did not aspire to be a statesman, a man of
science, or a politician.
Now, a person who lacks
�30
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
experience in these phases of life is not in the best
position to give practical and satisfactory lessons thereon.
Even in the conditions of life he is said to have filled, this
“ Light of the World ” failed to exhibit any high degree of
excellence, discrimination, or manly courage. As a son, he
lacked affection and consideration for the feelings of his
parents. As a teacher, he was mystical and rude; and as a
reasoner, he was defective and illogical. Lacking a true
method of reasoning, possessing no uniformity of character,
Christ exhibited a strange example—an example injudicious
to exalt and dangerous to emulate. At times he was
severe when he should have been gentle. When he might
have reasoned he frequently rebuked. When he ought to
have been firm and resolute he was vacillating. When he
should have been happy he was sorrowful and desponding.
After preaching faith as the one thing needful, he himself
lacked it when he required it the most. Thus, on the cross,
when a knowledge of a life of integrity, a sensibility of the
fulfilment of a good mission, a conviction that he was
dying for a good and righteous cause, and fulfilling the
object of his life—when all these should have given him
moral strength, we find him giving vent to utter despair.
So overwhelmed was he with grief and anxiety of mind
that he “began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” “My
soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even unto death.” At
last, overcome with grief, he implores his father to rescue
him from the death which was then awaiting him.
Christ is paraded as the one redeemer of the world, but
his system lacks such essentials of all reform as worldly
ambition, and reliance upon the human power of regenera
tion. If we lament the poverty and wretchedness we
behold, we are told by Christians that “the poor shall
never cease out of the land.” If we seek to remove the
sorrow and despair existing around us, we are reminded
that they were “ appointed curses to the sons of Adam.”
If we work to improve our condition, we are taught that
we should remain “in that state of life in which it has
pleased God to call us.” When we endeavor to improve
our minds and to cultivate our intellects, we are informed
that “ we are of ourselves unable to do any good thing.”
If we seek to promote the happiness of others, we are
assured that “ faith in Christ is of more importance than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER 1
31
labor for man.” We to-day have but a vague idea of the
extent of the influence such teachings once exercised over
the minds of those who believed them. These teachings
have permeated the minds of orthodox Christians, stifling
their reason and perverting their judgment, till they
cherish the delusion that the reasonings of philosophers,
the eloquence of poets, and the struggles of patriots are
all worse than useless unless purified by the “ Spirit of
Christ.” It is such delusions which foster the erroneous
and retarding belief that every thought which does not
aspire to the throne of Christ, every action which is not
sanctioned by him, and every motive which does not
proceed from a love for him should be discouraged as
antagonistic to our real progress in life.
It is contended by some that, although Christ did not
give detailed remedies for existing evils, he taught
“ general principles ” which would, if acted upon, prove a
panacea for the wrongs of life. This was not so, for his
“general principles” lacked the saving power that was
desired. What were those “ principles ” as laid down in
the Gospels ? So far as they can be understood, they were
as follows: Absolute trust in God ; implicit belief in
himself; reliance upon the prayer of supplication; disregard
of the world; taking no anxious thought for the morrow ;
encouragement of poverty, and contempt of riches;
obedience to the law of the Old Testament; neglect of
home and families; non-resistance of evil; that persecution
in this world and punishment in some other would follow
the rejection of Christianity; and that sickness was caused
by the possession of devils. These are among the leading
“ principles ” taught by Christ; and, if they were acted
upon, there would be an end of all progress, harmony, and
self-reliance.
But even if the “general principles”
propounded by Jesus were good, that would not be enough
to make him the greatest reformer. It is necessary, in
addition to knowing what is to be done, to have the
knowledge of how it is to be done. And this is just what
Jesus has not taught us. Principles do not aid progress
unless they can be applied ; and, whatever value his
teachings may have as matters of belief, they are incapable
of application in the great cause of political and social
advancement in the nineteenth century.
�32
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Judged from the Secular standpoint, the real redeemers
of the world are those who study the great facts of
nature, learning her secrets, and revealing her power and
value to the human family. While Christ devoted himself
to the mysteries of theology, such reformers as Copernicus,
Galileo, Bruno, and subsequently Newton, Locke, Darwin,
and a host of other servants of humanity, endeavored
to the best of their ability to ascertain the truths of
existence, and to vindicate the principle of freedom.
Copernicus and his immediate successors redeemed the
world from errors which for ages had been nursed by the
Church; Locke based his philosophy upon knowledge, not
upon the faiths of theology; Newton contended that' the
universe was regulated by natural law, not by supernatural
power; and Darwin exploded the Bible error of creation.
These redeemers rescued mankind from the burden of
ignorance and superstition that had so long prevented the
recognition of truth and the advancement of knowledge.
Shakespeare contributed more to the enlightenment of the
human race than Christ was capable of doing; Darwin far
surpassed St. Paul in bringing to view the great forces of
nature, and the Freethought heroes and martyrs aided the
emancipation of intellect to a far higher degree than either
the “Carpenter of Nazareth ” or the whole of his followers.
The power that has enabled these secular redeemers of the
world to achieve their glorious results was found, not in
perplexing theologies, but in the principles of Science and
Liberty—the true saviors of men.
�
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
Was Christ a political and social reformer?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
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 (Was Christ a political and social reformer?), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1572
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Jesus Christ
politics
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ac0cb5bd7ca90eb4b08ec2903881bc78.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=ikfsWJF5E3kuE9UnO3G8qwIMxowPl9CgnEWJHoV5OXSLulLBdMfmsIJh1wzrHx22wRTe9V-gq1HaOcRD1VKOWjfQtLE8x2-hi1vbcnHBFQCxM7jlebsh3vHyr5ImPMy4ZvWvZuRsB5oSFVz35vOhKksJjmckH7v80ECA-FU-FG0wVelgQ%7Ek2TAIn5R2VT6O4WAGGdQzTFDH%7EnabjI-zBU-J8gF6C0AsZg0PaJ3ji136vuiKe3r7BAN17PpQrIvL2bDeEKz6%7EjaAfZYazCppUwj58JSzOQ3UNcBBLU28p1WTnIWNe0FDQ1bmserMJZVl6go-33ztSGvlqpm7m9i748Q__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8ccaac1aeebba61efa3a024293c9bc6b
PDF Text
Text
THE
DEATH OF CHRIST
BY
CHARLES WATTS
(Vice-President of the National Secular Society)
Price Twopence
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET ST..
1896
��THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
The sermons preached on Good Friday last, as reported in
the various newspapers, afforded strange and peculiar read
ing to the non-theological mind. The one theme dwelt
upon in all the pulpits was the death of Christ with its
“ complete and sublime scheme of redemption for fallen
man.” It was urged that Eve and Adam fell from a state
of purity and perfection by an act of transgression in the
Garden of Eden, and thereby involved the whole of the
human family in sin and depravity. To remove the
consequences of this alleged act of transgression, it was
contended that the death of Christ was necessary in order
to atone to God, against whom a sin had been committed.
It was further urged that, through our “ first parents ”
partaking of the forbidden fruit, God became estranged
from his children, and that the sacrifice of his Son was
required to reconcile the Father to his children. As it is
put in the Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England,
“ Christ was crucified to reconcile his Father to us. To be
a sacrifice for sins of men ” (Article 2). It is also stated in
the Confession of Faith that Christ’s death “purchased
reconciliation ” (chap. viii.). The Biblical authority, as
accepted by orthodox believers, for this view of the death
of Christ is as follows : “ Behold the Lamb of God, which
taketh away the sins of the world ” (John i. 29); “ he is the
propitiation for the sins of the whole world ” (1 John ii. 2);
“ the Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many ”
(Matt, xx.) ■, “ through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
we have now received the atonement” (Romans v.); “ this
is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many
for the remission of sins ” (Matt. xxvi. 28); “ Christ was
�4
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
once offered to bear the sins of many ” (Hebrews ix. 28);
and “For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be
made alive” (1 Cor. xv.). Upon these and a few other
texts in the New Testament orthodox Christians base their
theory of the Atonement.
It may be interesting to note the conflicting character of
the theories which professed Christians have held con
cerning the atonement, which is supposed to have been
made through the death of Christ. The Augustinian
school taught that mankind were doomed to hell through
the fall of Adam, and that Christ’s death cancelled the sin
committed, and thus saved them from being utterly lost.
The Calvinists believe that God foresaw that Adam would
fall, and that posterity would thereby be damned; and
therefore he selected a few, who are termed the “ elect,” to
be saved, while the many are deprived of this special
provision for their salvation. It seems to us that if God
possessed the foreknowledge here ascribed to him, and if he
were all-powerful, it would have been more to his credit if
he had included the entire human family among his “ elect.”
The evangelical Christians suppose that the vicarious suffer
ings of Christ secured conditional pardon, the condition
being the belief that Christ died as a substitute for sinners
—that is, that an avowed innocent person was made to suffer
for those alleged to be guilty. The Universalists consider
that no one is damned beyond his personal sin in this
world. If an individual be ever so bad in the present life,
all evil will depart at death, and he will be ushered into
heaven pure and spotless. The Unitarians, rejecting all
the above theories, contend that the object of Christ’s life,
rather than of his death, was to reconcile man to God, not
God to man. Relying upon such statements in the Bible
as “ Every man shall die for his own sin,” “ To punish the
just is not good,” they consider the popular view of the
Atonement fallacious. Such are a few of the conflicting
notions held by the Christian sects as to the nature of the
“ simple plan of salvation.”
Some of the early Christian Fathers taught that the
death of Christ was a satisfaction to the Devil. The Rev.
Scott Porter, in his History of the Doctrine of the Atonement,
says : “ The doctrine of satisfaction, when it was plainly
broached, which was not till about two hundred years
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
5
after the death of Christ, did not represent his blood as
satisfying the claims of divine justice, but as a payment
made to the Devil /” This was the doctrine advocated by
the celebrated Origen, who wrote : “ It was the Devil who
held us in bondage : for to him we had been given over for
our sins. Wherefore, he demanded the blood of Christ as
the price of our redemption ” (p. 19). St. Ambrose states :
“We were in pledge to a bad creditor for sin; but Christ
came and offered his blood for us.” Optatus says : “ The
souls of men were in the possession of the Devil till they
were ransomed by the blood of Christ.” According to St.
Augustine, “ the blood of Christ is given as a price that
we might be delivered from the Devil’s bonds.” He
regards the death of Christ, “ not as a payment of a debt
due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of
his fair and lawful claims ” (fbidf
Other eminent Christian divines taught that it was not
merely the man Jesus who died, but God himself. Osiander,
a friend and fellow-laborer of Luther, maintained that Christ
died and satisfied divine justice, not as man, but as Cod.
Hooper, a venerable name in the Christian Church, states
that he cares “ for no knowledge in the world but this, that
man hath sinned, and God hath suffered ” {Porter s Lectures on
the Atonement, p. 68). The same belief is expressed by Dr.
Watts, who in his hymns exclaims :—
Well might the sun in darkness hide,
And shut his glories in,
When God, the mighty Maker, died
For man, the creature’s, sin.
Behold a God descends and dies
To save my soul from gaping hell.
Wesley also exclaims :—
Sinners, turn ! why will ye die ?
God your Savior asks you why ;
God, who did your souls retrieve,
Died himself that ye might live.
Is it not evident, from the diversity of opinions which is
here shown to have existed (and much of that diversity
still obtains) in the Christian world as to the character and
meaning of the death of Christ, how perplexing any scheme
must be that is based upon it ?
�6
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
The fact is, apart from all sectarian and forced inter
pretations, it appears to us that the Bible plan of redemp
tion through the death of Christ is simply this : About six
thousand years ago an all-wise, all-powerful, and beneficent
God made man and woman, and placed them in a position
surrounded by temptations it was impossible for them to
withstand. For instance, he implanted within them desires
which, as God, he must have known would produce their
downfall. He next caused a tree to bear fruit that was
adapted to harmonise with the very desires which he had
previously imparted to his children. God, all-good, then
created a serpent of the worst possible kind, in order that
it might be successful in tempting Eve to partake of the
fruit. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of this
fruit, under the penalty of death, knowing at the same time
that they would eat of it, and that they would not die. The
serpent is allowed to succeed in his plan of temptation, and
then God curses the ground for yielding the tree which he
himself had caused to grow; further, the Almighty Being
dooms both man and woman to lives of pain and sorrow,
and assures them that their posterity shall feel the terrible
effects of their having done what it was impossible, under
the circumstances, for them to avoid. Although at first
God pronounced his creative work to be “ very good,” it
proved to be quite the opposite. So bad did the human
family become that God determined to bring a flood upon
the earth and wash every member, one household excepted,
out of existence. This “ water-cure ” was not, however,
sufficient to correct the “ divine ” errors, for the people
grew worse than ever. God now decided upon another
plan—namely, to send his son—who was as old as himself,
and, therefore, not his son—to die, but who was invested
with immortality and could not die, to atone for sins that
had never been committed by people who were not then
born, and who could not, therefore, have been guilty of any
sin. As a conclusion to the whole scheme, this all-merciful
God prepared a hell, containing material fire of brimstone,
to burn the immaterial souls of all persons who should fail
to believe the truth, justice, and necessity of this jumble of
cruelty and absurdity.
We now propose to show that this “ sublime scheme of
redemption ” is not only illogical, but that it was un
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
7
necessary, supremely unjust, inconsistent, and has been an
utter failure in achieving its avowed object.
The Christian pretension, that the death of Christ provided
a complete atonement for the alleged transgression in the
Garden of Eden, is not supported by the details of the
scheme as contained in the Bible, or by the exposition of
it as given by eminent theological writers. The orthodox
position is that the Godhead is composed of three persons
of one substance, power, and duration. If this be so, and
if an atonement was really necessary, it should have been
threefold, inasmuch as the Son and the Holy Ghost, being
a part of the Trinity, required to be satisfied equally with
the Father; but we do not read of any sacrifice having
been made to them. Besides, if the three persons were
one in substance, etc., it is difficult to see how one part
could be wrathful and another part merciful at the same
time. The New Testament speaks of God’s wrath, and
such Christian writers as the pious Flavel, Wesley, and
Dr. Watts state that it was from this wrath that the death
of Christ was intended to save the human race. Flavel,
who was an exponent of the evangelical school, writes :
“ To wrath—to the wrath of an infinite God, without
mixture—to the very torments of hell, was Christ delivered;
and that by the hand of his own Father. God stood upon
full satisfaction, and would not remit one sin without it ”
(Works, folio edition, p. 10). Dr. Watts speaks of Jesus’s
blood turning God’s “ wrath to grace,” and Wesley writes :
“ Jesus speaks and pleads his blood. He disarms the wrath
of God.”
It is folly to claim, as Christians do, that this priestlyinvented scheme of the Atonement manifests a spirit of
divine forgiveness. Instead of being a forgiving plan, it is
one of exaction and vengeance. According to the story,
God demands and receives payment before he grants
pardon; Christ exacts belief in himself as the condition of
salvation; and he who sins against the Holy Ghost is never
to be forgiven. Stockel admits that, “in a strict and
proper sense, God does not forgive sin, for Christ hath
given him full satisfaction. How, then, can it be justly
said that God pardoneth sins and transgressions ? Surely
that debt can never be forgiven that is paid” (cited by
Dr. Bruce, Sermons, 2nd edition, p. 354). From a rational
�8
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
point of view, the matter resolves itself into this : Christ
either paid the “ debt ” or he did not. If he did pay it,
that should settle the account, and we ought not to be
bothered with it any further; whereas, if he did not pay
the “debt,” the whole scheme is a sham and a delusion.
The absurdity of the orthodox view of the death of Christ
is further manifested in the supposition that it was a part
of the indivisible Godhead that died. This is theological
conjecture run mad; for, if it were Christ alone who died
and remained lifeless in the grave for three days and three
nights, he was not equal in eternity with his father; while,
on the other hand, if the whole of the deity expired, then
we have the curious spectacle of a dying and a dead God,
and the world for a time existing without any “ divine ”
aid in its government. To say that it was only the man
hood of Christ which suffered and died is but raising
another difficulty in allying humanity with what is termed
divinity; thus adding a fourth part to the Trinity, and
thereby destroying the perfection of the whole, for where
the human element is there can be no perfection. More
over, according to the orthodox theory, a mere human
death was not enough to redeem humanity from the effects
of the sin committed against an infinite God. Of course,
we do not admit that any such sin ever occurred, for the
simple reason that, if a person is compelled to perform
an act, it is no sin upon his part. And, as we have shown
in a previous page, Adam and Eve acted as they did under
compulsion. As to enmity existing between God and man
as the result of partaking of the fruit, the question arises :
Where did the enmity come from ? Did God implant it in
the minds of his children ? If so, he was responsible for the
consequences which followed. If, however, man acquired
it independently of God, then he was not the creator of all
things, as the Bible states he was—even of evil. We are
aware it is said that God gave man a free will; but this is
only another theological error. There can be no freedom
where circumstances impel in one direction, as, according
to the account, they did in the Garden of Eden. Besides,
we read that the plan was arranged “before the foundation
of the world” (Ephesians i. 4 ; 1 Peter i. 19, 20).
Not only is the theory that the world was redeemed
through the death of Christ utterly absurd, but it came too
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
late. If the Atonement were at all necessary, it should have
been made immediately after Adam’s alleged transgression,
so as to have prevented a single generation from going to
the grave with the curse of original sin unremoved. But,
according to the Bible theory, God allowed four thousand
years to elapse, and millions of his children to die, ere the
Atonement was made. This, to say the least, was not
either just or merciful upon the part of “the Great Father
of all.” If it be true that no one can be saved except
through belief in Christ, then it may be fairly asked, What
became of the numberless human beings who died prior to
his birth ? And, further, what will be the fate of those
who are now living who have not heard, and probably
never will hear, of the mission of Jesus of Nazareth ? To
say that the former were saved by anticipation, and that
the latter will be excused on account of their lack of know
ledge, is only to represent the scheme as being still more
absurd, and altogether useless. If a portion of mankind
could be saved without the Crucifixion, what necessity was
there for Christ to have suffered at all ? His sorrow, agony,
and bloody sweat might all have been avoided, and many
/ saints might have been spared the tortures of the stake and
the rack. Surely, if for thousands of years people could go
to heaven without the supposed advantages of the death of
Christ, it was superfluous to introduce the “ sign of the
s Cross ” to secure an object which had already been achieved.
\ Besides, if the ignorance of the existence of this “ atoning
^jheme” will exempt a person from “punishment here
after,” is it not cruel and futile to send missionaries to the
(heathens with the “ glad tidings ” ? Let them not know of
it, and there would be no danger of their being punished
for rejecting it; but let them be informed of the scheme,
and their happiness in another world becomes very doubtful.
Considering the diversity of the perceptive powers, even
among “ heathens,” we cannot reasonably suppose that all
to whom the scheme is expounded will be able to receive it
as true. Thus the salvation, which was secure in a blissful
state of ignorance, is placed in jeopardy by missionary
efforts. The truth is, that if the death of Christ were
really necessary to redeem a “fallen race,” it was unjust
upon the part of God to permit so many centuries to pass
before the people had the alleged benefit of his atoning
�10
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
blood. If, on the other hand, the death of Christ was not
required to restore a “ lost race,” then it was a reckless and
an unnatural act for a father to give his son to a wild mob,
to be.executed amidst the exultations of a disappointed and
fanatical people.
Moreover, if it were desirable upon the part of God to
send, his son to save the world from eternal perdition, why
was it that, when he did arrive, so many nations were kept
in ignorance of his mission ? Even the Jews, God’s chosen
people, had no knowledge that an incarnate deity was to
expire on the Cross. If the regeneration of the world had
been the object of Christ, would it not have been better,
instead of ascending to heaven, for him to have remained
on earth, teaching practical truths, and showing by his own
personal example how the world could be rescued from
that moral and intellectual darkness and despair to which
it had been reduced by the influence of a degrading
theology ?
The orthodox idea of the object of Christ’s death involves
the committal of a gross act of injustice upon the part of
God in making the declared innocent suffer for the avowed
guilty. Justice has been defined to “consist in rendering
to everyone according to his moral deserts ; good if he be
good, and evil if evil—for the purpose of promoting good
ness and discouraging guilt.” If this be a recognised
standard of right in human affairs, surely it should not be
ignored in dealing with “ divine ” actions. Suppose, there
fore, that Christ was “ without sin,” as stated in the New
Testament (Hebrews iv. 15), was it not unjust to punish
him for the wrong-doing of others ? Let us take the case
of an earthly father, who had, say, seven children, six of
whom were thoroughly bad, and the seventh as good as
human nature could possibly be. Now, would it be con
sidered just upon the part of that father to punish the one
good child for the misdeeds of the six bad ones ? Such
conduct would ensure for its perpetrator a general and an
emphatic condemnation. If a judge were knowingly to
sentence to death an innocent man as a substitute for a
criminal, the act would provoke universal detestation, and
the judge’s judicial position would in all probability be
forfeited. No Christian would think it just to imprison
and torture priests to-day simply because their predecessors,
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
11
under the influence of fanaticism, defiled portions of the
earth with human slaughter. Is it consistent for Christians
to ascribe an act to their God which good men would refuse
to perform ? We think not.
Besides, the alleged redeeming feature in the death of
Christ manifests cruelty to the human race in asserting
that, although its members had no control over the acts of
Eve and Adam, still, in consequence of what they did, we
are all “born in sin and shapened in iniquity.” Upon
what principle of justice can such merciless treatment be
defended ? According to this orthodox notion, the moment
we enter life, in our infantile helplessness and childish
innocence, we are thought to be deserving of the wrath of
God. Even if it were true that sin was committed in the
Garden of Eden, will that justify wrong being done to us ?
Are we on that account to be rendered liable to be doomed
to eternal torment ? If so, a God who could either arrange
or permit such cruel injustice will never be recognised by
Secularists as a kind and loving father. We know that the
Bible, on more than one occasion, represents its God as
punishing the innocent for the guilty. Eor instance, we
read that he is “ a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the
fathers upon the children ” (Exodus xx. 5); that he cut off
seventy thousand men in Israel by a pestilence, on account
of the sin of David in numbering the people (2 Samuel
xxiv. 15); and that he deprived an innocent child of life
to show his displeasure of a crime committed by this “ man
after God’s own heart” (2 Samuel xii. 14). It is such
actions as these, which, contrary to all true standards of
right, are performed by the Christian Deity, that impel us to
prefer Atheism to the belief in a being who could inflict
such wrongs upon the human family.
Attempts have been made to palliate these “ divine acts ”
by asserting that in the course of nature the innocent have
to suffer for the guilty, as in the case of drunkards and
debauchees, who transmit disease and debility to their
offspring. But two wrongs cannot make one right;
besides, if God was the author of Nature, could he not
have so arranged her operations that this evil of trans
mission would have been avoided 1 The two cases, how
ever, are not analogous, inasmuch as the .children referred
to do not suffer for, but through, the vices of their parents;
�12
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
and, moreover, in such suffering there is no punishment
intended; it is a consequence, not a penalty. The
children of criminal parents are not blamed, but are
rather pitied, for being innocent victims of the guilt
of others. This was not the case, according to orthodox
teaching, with Christ, who was punished for the sins of
others.
The theory that the death of Christ was an atonement
to G-od for actual sins committed is so glaringly inconsistent
that it is really marvellous how it can be regarded as true
by sensible men and women. It is stated that the death
of Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world,
and, at the same time, we are informed that man was
created perfect and immortal. If it were ordained that
Christ should die for the redemption of the world, the
transgressions of Eve and Adam were only a part of God’s
plan, and certainly did not deserve any curse, but rather
merited a blessing. As we have already pointed out, there
was no free-will in the case, for it was originally arranged
that but one course had to be followed—namely, the one
that led to the sacrifice of Christ. If Adam and Eve had
adopted any other course, God’s plans would have been
thwarted, for we read in the fourth Gospel that Christ
knew from the beginning that he would be betrayed ■ and
this betrayal was the first act in the tragedy of the cross.
Now, if the death of Christ were preordained, so also was
the “ Fall of Man,” for the one depends upon the. other, as
the Bible says : “ For as in Adam all died, so in Christ
shall all be made alive.” Assuming this to be true, man
could not have been created perfect; but the very fact of his
“falling,” or giving way to temptation, was a proof of his
imperfection. The truth is, the Bible story of the fall of
man is a phase of an ancient myth; and, as Dr. Kalisch
observes, it is “ no exclusive feature of the Hebrews.”
Professor Jowett considered the account, as given in the
Bible, “ a grand Hebrew poem.” Similar stories were
current among the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the Persians.
The Hindoos had a “ tree of life,” which was said to be
guarded by spirits, and contained a j uice that was thought
to impart immortality to those who partook of it. It is
time that the belief in this fiction of the Fall as being a
reality should cease. The lesson of history and experience
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
13
is that the career of man has been one of ascent, not descent;
of progression, not retrogression.
Further inconsistencies in this scheme of redemption
through the death of Christ are the allegation that he
came to save the whole world, and his reported conduct
while on earth. If universal salvation were the object of
his mission, it proved a decided failure. But Christ did
not attempt to achieve such a result, for he stated himself
that he came to the Jews, and to the Jews alone j and even
among them his labors were not crowned with success.
Following Christ to the close of his career, we behold the
culmination of inconsistency in the manner in which he
acted in the garden of Gethsemane. Here was a man who
had preached upon the utility of a faith which, it was said,
not only afforded consolation through life, but was capable
of robbing death of its terrors ; yet when the hour of death
approached, when the period had arrived for him to prove
to the world the efficacy of this faith, he was tortured with
doubt and racked with fear. In that scene, which was not
only to rivet the attention of an amazed multitude, but
was also to consecrate a life of divinity—a scene which
was not only to be the great climax to the scheme of
redemption, but was to afford an example that should
remain as a lasting monument of greatness to a wondering
people ; at this moment, when it was expected that the
hopes of his followers were about to be sealed, when he
should have maintained ’his position with unsurpassed
bravery he was weak and vacillating, and in bitter despair
he prayed that the cup might pass from him. Where can we
recognise consistency and heroism in the death of Christ ?
Is it in the conduct of one who came to die for man,
yet, when about to fulfil his destiny, implored to
be allowed to escape the death 1 Is it in teaching that
Christ came as a voluntary sacrifice, yet had to be
betrayed by man ? Is it in a Father of reputed love and
kindness inflicting unnecessary torture upon his sensitive
son ? Is it in the statement that Christ, by asking, could
obtain an answer to any request made to his father; yet
his fervent supplications were unheeded, and his dying
prayers were unanswered ? Finally, is it in the act of a
God who, having allowed his son to be placed upon a
felon’s cross, permits him to yield up a sorrowful life, after
�14
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
uttering unavailing reproaches in those memorable words :
“ My God ! my God ! why hast thou forsaken me ?”
In conclusion, let us remember that from the Christian’s
standpoint the object of the death of Christ has not been
attained. That object was to make a complete satisfaction
for all sin, and to remove such sin from the world. But
these objects have not been attained, for mankind has still
to secure its own exemption from the supposed effects of
sin; and, further, sin still surrounds us. If Christ, by his
death, paid the debt that is said to have been incurred
through sin entering into the world, why should man be
required to make a second payment ? As to the boasted
victories of the cross, where are they ? We have still
misery, pain, folly, ignorance, crime, and injustice in the
world. The erection of the cross has not frightened the
miscreant nor appalled the tyrant. The voice from the
height of Calvary has not destroyed error nor cemented
truth ; neither has the death of Christ produced that
condition of society in which it is impossible for man to be
depraved and poor. If, as we are told, the Savior has
come, it may be fairly asked, 11 Whence comes salvation ?”
��WORKS BY CHARLES WATTS.
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY EXAMINED FROM
A RATIONALIST STANDPOINT. 64 pp., 6d., by post 7d.
THE TEACHINGS
OF SECULARISM COMPARED
WITH ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. Is., by post Is. 2d.
CHRISTIANITY: ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND IN
FLUENCE. 4d., by post 5d.
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
3d., by post 4d.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH
IS THE MORE REASONABLE ? 3d., by post 4d.
A REPLY TO FATHER LAMBERTS “TACTICS OF
INFIDELS.” 6d., by post 7d.
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
An Open Letter to
the Rev. Dr. R. F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S. 2d., by post 2|d.
THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL; OR,
BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE. 3d., by post 4d.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 3d., by post
4d.
HAPPINESS IN HELL AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
3d., by post 4d.
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE. 4d., by post 5d.
BIBLE MORALITY: Its Teachings Shown to be Contra
dictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 3d., by post 3|d.
SECULARISM: IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND
IS IT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE WANTS OF MANKIND ?
Debate between the Editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and
Charles Watts. With Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and
Colonel R. G. Ingersoll, and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
Is., by post Is. 2d.
SECULARISM: ITS RELATION TO THE SOCIAL
PROBLEMS OF THE DAY. 2d., by post 2|d.
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE 1 Reply to
Dr. R. B. Westbrook. 3d., by post 4d.
SAINTS AND SINNERS : WHICH 1 3d., by post 4d.
EDUCATION : TRUE AND FALSE. 2d., by post 2|d.
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY.
A Plea for Liberty and Justice. 3d., by post 4d.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD; OR, QUESTIONS FOR
THEISTS. 2d., by post 2|d.
CHRISTIANITY AND CIVILISATION. 3d., by post 4d.
THE BIBLE UP TO DATE. 2d., by post 2|d.
WHY DO RIGHT? A Secularist’s Answer. 3d., by post 4d.
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RE
FORMER? 4d., by post 5d.
MISCELLANEOUS PAMPHLETS, Cloth 2s., by post 2s. 3d.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s-court, Fleet-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
The death of Christ
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. 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
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1575
N663
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The death of Christ), 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
Jesus Christ-Crucifixion
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/577a7d9d399013b4d1438ff034fb5fa6.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=U3wMtUxcb6EiXHc6xDm%7EYe-z7BcYqgoOe6AzNIQX8fKniEazP7InffFSCLm9aJa2N5myAJbBY2ioJiP9EpFMLW9I0nqG9Rh2TzobKFkZQlKyjSEPA1l119C9Zawi8SB6cfDQpMiQqIQlVEco6eIxiaEJTTtxobYWocUgV5VOjKxltedR7t5bZ%7E31Q8GZvm1uMV-TThtM0i7m4vVANDjYi7JDbL8gtVXrPEKovvMTtrQKsVAOysBPsBpS8cYzAWKYLmm4g7qKMwQkSDzbdP5eplX%7EOnqeG8FM%7ECl8NwaD-jPVvPVXbgNbgCxPywwiB7nwy6W0JJEI9ric9uB8ah4onQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
51f6097585b77ea0437375114c072a5e
PDF Text
Text
hh ‘Thousand
IjJlYTHIC CHRISTS
||1ND THE TRUE
I ^.CRITICISM OF SOME MODERN THEORIES
. •
y Rev. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, m a
d d.
L*te Jaa>es Long Lecturer on Oriental ReVgura^i
NTER
AND
LONGHURST
g PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
FOR
NORTH LONDON CHRISTIAN
EVIDENCE LEAGUE
*
Sixpence ndtt
��N'&8
MYTHIC CHRISTS
AND THE TRUE
A CRITICISM OF SOME MODERN THEORIES
By Rev. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, m.a„ d.d.
THE NORTH LONDON CHRISTIAN
EVIDENCE LEAGUE
12, Hici STREET, HAMPSTEAD, N.W.
1909
��nahonalskularsooety
PREFACE
“ Our age,
Our weakling age, sick of a deadly doubt.”
QNE of the most urgent needs of the present time
is that of men who will think for themselves
and not be “ driven about by every wind of doctrine.”
In many cases, it is true, the struggle for daily bread
is nowadays so acute that not a few busy men and
women have neither time nor energy to devote
themselves to deep study. At the same time they
are ready and willing to accept the latest informa
tion which they can obtain on all matters of im
portance. We know that some people are specialists
in scientific matters, others in archaeology, others in
other subjects, and we are for the most part com
pelled to take for granted the results which such
men have reached by their learned researches.
Natural as this attitude is in certain respects, it is
not wise to adopt it too readily in religious matters.
“ Call no man your father upon earth,” “ Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good,” are Scriptural
maxims which commend themselves to our common
sense and to our English love of freedom. We should
practise these directions more than we do. If we
must consult a physician, let us make sure before
hand that he is not a quack. Let us not rashly
stake the moral and religious interests of ourselves
�iv
PREFACE
and of those who are near and dear to us for time
and for eternity on the unsupported assertions of
the first person we meet who makes an attack on
Christianity and the Bible. Let us occasionally
doubt our own doubts. The Christian Faith has re
sisted the billows and storms of nearly nineteen
centuries, and it is therefore at least unlikely that
the “ gates of Hades ” will now “ prevail against it,”
the more so because all or almost all the arguments
brought against it to-day have been used again and
again before our time without success.
The desire to be “ up-to-date” in matters of thought
does not generally exert undue influence upon men
of sober earnestness and common sense, such as
those for whom this little book is mainly intended.
But more shallow minds—though for them too
Christ died and rose again—more readily yield to
the temptation to be “ abreast of the times,” as they
think. The result of this want of thought too often
is that worn-out theories and long exploded errors
are for a time accepted as the latest discoveries of
the most enlightened age in the world’s history.
This is not the best way of being “ up-to-date.” Let
us study, and think, and pray.
At the present moment not a few writers, some of
them men of learning, others men who have no claim
to be considered such, are endeavouring to convince
“ the man in the street ” that certain leading doctrines
of Christianity have been borrowed from heathenism.
In some cases these people are ignorant of what
the doctrines they are assailing really are. In nearly
every instance the assailant shews that he has never
■
�PREFACE
v
devoted any careful study to Christian evidences.
Not unfrequently it becomes evident from the
language he uses that he is absolutely unaware
that such things exist! If, besides this degree of
ignorance, he possesses a perfervid imagination, he
is in a position to write, in all good faith, a book
admirably calculated to cause deep spiritual distress
to those who are not well grounded in their faith
in Christ, who have no personal knowledge of the
Master Himself, but merely a more or less tra
ditionary belief in Him. If this feeling of distress
causes them to enquire and so learn the certainty
of those things wherein they have (or should have)
been instructed, the result will be good for them
selves in every way. Enquiry may lead them to
genuine personal knowledge of the Master, whom
to know is everlasting life.
It is in the hope of being able to help those who
are really in earnest in seeking the truth that I have
written this little book. It is the result of years of
study of Oriental religions and of their sacred books.
My sceptical mind has forced me to doubt other
men’s statements about the teaching contained in
these, and has thus compelled me to study them in
their original languages. Therefore I base my con
clusions not on other people’s assertions, but on my
own researches.
I candidly confess that I once myself knew by
painful experience the agony of religious doubt and
uncertainty on the most vital of all subjects. It
therefore seems to me a simple matter of duty, now
that I know the truth as it is in Jesus Christ, to
�vi
PREFACE
strive to remove difficulties from other men’s paths.
If in any measure I succeed in this, it will be its own
reward.
In the course of my study of anti-Christian works,
I must regretfully acknowledge that I have not
always been impressed with the conviction that their
authors desired at any cost to find out and declare
“the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth,” though one naturally starts with that assump
tion and endeavours to cling to it to the end in
every case.
The nineteenth century produced quite a large
crop of theories more or less opposed to Christianity.
It was an age of hasty and ill-considered conclusions.
The tide is now turning. What has well been said
regarding Wolf’s hypothesis about the Homeric
poems is true also in reference to much that has
been written against the Christian faith. “ The
operose constructions of the German professors ”
(and English sciolists) “ are being obliterated, like a
child’s sand castles, by the returning tide of sense ”
(Times, lit. supplement, 8th March, 1907).
�CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface
iii
CHAPTER
I.
Mithra and Modern Myths
II.
The “Indian Christ” of Some Modern
Mythologists...............................................
24
III. The Historical Buddha and Modern
Mythology...............................................
34
IV. The Myth of Adonis, Attis, and Osiris .
45
Our Modern Mythologists v. the VirginBirth
.........................................................
75
V.
i
��Mythic Christs and
the True
MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
A/TYTHS being the offspring of credulity and
ignorance, it is not surprising that they should
spring up in our own day, when our magazines tell
of “ J ulia’s ” latest feats in calligraphy and some of
our London papers question whether the Christ
of the Gospels ever lived at all. We find so many
modern myths in this country, all professing to be
very ancient and to give true and reliable accounts
of the stories current in heathen lands about
various deities and heroes, that their existence and
the credit which they obtain shew that the age of
miracles is not past. The credulity of the incre
dulous is a daily miracle. Provided that the person
who writes a book or an article on any Oriental
religion or philosophy is able to shew his gross
ignorance of Christianity and his utter lack of ac
quaintance with Eastern languages, he is apparently
at once accepted by most of our fellow-countrymen
as an authority upon all these points. To dispute
his “conclusions” is to prove one’s own ignorance
and “narrowmindedness,” all the more so should one
have spent a large part of one’s life in the study of
such subjects and among those who profess the
religions and philosophies in question. It bears out
B
�2
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the classical proverb, “ The people wish to be de
ceived, let them be so.”
To the mere student of things Eastern this attitude
of “Modern Thought” (lucus a non lucendo') in Eng
land is full of interest. His Oriental studies have
given him some acquaintance at first-hand with the
mythology of the East, and he fondly fancies that
he knows all about Krishna and his mother DevakI,
Mithra and the “ Petra Genetrix,” Isis and the
infant Horus. As he has probably consulted the
“Ethnic Scriptures” in which these tales are told,
and read them in their original languages, there is
some excuse for this fancy on his part. But when
he turns to modern English books and periodicals,
he finds an entirely new collection of tales on these
very subjects, tales for the most part unknown to
the worshippers of the deities in question. To his
jaded mind these have, at least, all the charm of
utter novelty. He has certainly never read or heard
anything of the kind before. He often finds authori
ties quoted for the assertions made by the writers
of these wonderful stories. Should he take the trouble
to consult these authorities, he finds either that they
have evidently been misunderstood, or that they
actually assert something quite contrary to what
they are quoted in support. Occasionally the chapter
or verse referred to does not exist in the book quoted.
The student is surprised at all this, but he concludes
that no man in his senses would accept as true
assertions so baseless, and statements made by men
who have at least shewn no knowledge whatever of
the subjects on which they write. He is therefore
astounded to find hard-headed business men, men
priding themselves on their common-sense and the
impossibility of taking them in, men who would not
risk a penny in business transactions without long
and careful scrutiny—to find these men blindly
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
3
accepting such romances without enquiry, and stak
ing their present and future happiness upon the
correctness of asserted “ facts ” which are destitute
of a shade of proof. There are, no doubt, reasons
for this strange attitude of mind, for this marvellous
credulity, but justification there cannot be. Even a
very casual enquiry would, in many cases, shew the
phenomenal inaccuracy of many modern disquisi
tions upon Comparative Religion and kindred sub
jects. But our credulous unbeliever has no time for
enquiry. Besides, he is too certain of his “ conclu
sions” to care to examine the ground on which
they are based. Possibly it might turn out to be
another instance of “terminological inexactitude,”
and this is an age of myth-making. Why should
not modern myths be as good as ancient ones and
quite as reliable ? Besides, enquiry might shew that
Christ was true, and that might, suggest the duty of
honourably keeping one’s baptismal vow. On the
whole, then, many a man prefers not to enquire, not
to think, though he calls himself a sceptic (enquirer)
and talks loudly of “free thought,” which to him
seems to mean freedom from thought.
We proceed to adduce evidence to prove this as far
as Mithra is concerned.
A modern writer on the subject, who tells us that
his book “challenges1 criticism above all by its thesis,”
informs us that “vigilant scholars confess that we
know very little as to the Mithraic religion,”2 and
that “we cannot hope to find much direct know
ledge.” Yet he proceeds, as do others, to afford us
a complete account of the legends and the inmost
theology of the Mithraists, together with details of
its origin. All this he has warned us is not “ direct
1 Mr. J. M. Robertson, Pagan Christs, preamble, p. xi., ed.
of 1903.
a Oi). cit., p. 292.
�4
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
knowledge,” and so we should be prepared to find
that his “ imagination bodies forth the forms of things
unknown, and . . . gives to airy nothing a local habita
tion and a name.” This unquestionably is what we
do find in his book and in others on the same lines.
A few examples will suffice to show this.
. Mr. Robertson says, “ Mithra1 comes to occupy a
singular position as between the two great Powers of
good and evil, Ormazd and Ahriman . . . being
actually named the MEDIATOR (Plutarch, Isis, and
Osins, cap. 46; Julian, in Regem Solem, capp. 9, io,
12), and figuring to the devout eye as a humane
and beneficent God, nearer to men than the Great
Spirit of Good, a Saviour, a Redeemer, eternally
young, Son of the Most High, and a preserver of
mankind from the Evil One. In brief, he is a Pagan
Christ.” “The Khorda Avesta2 (xxvi., 107) styles
Mithra ‘the Word? In the Vendidad (Fargand
xix. 15) Zarathustra speaks of Mithra, Sraosha, ‘the
Holy Word,’ thus joining Mithra with ‘the Word.’
. . . The Mithraic3 mysteries, then, of the burial
and. resurrection of the Lord, the Mediator and
Saviour; burial in. a rock tomb and resurrection from
that tomb: the sacrament of bread and water, the
marking on the forehead with a mystic mark, all
these were in practice . . . before the publication of
the Christian Gospel of a Lord who was buried in a
rock tomb, and rose from that tomb on the day
of the sun.” He then endeavours to find some frag
ment of proof that Mithra was regarded as Virginborn, and, though he fails in the search, he nevertheless
says, “ It4 was further practically a matter of course
that his divine mother should be styled Virgin,” and
asserts that he figures “as supernaturally born of
1 Op. cit., p. 304.
s Op. cit., pp. 333, 334.
2 Op. cit., pp. 329, 330.
4 Op. cit., p. 339.
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
5
a Virgin Mother and of the Most High God ’’ in the
fourth and fifth centuries, quoting the authority of
an Armenian Christian writer. We shall see later
what this authority does actually say, and how far
he is from supporting such a statement.
Men of our own age are popularly supposed to be
so ignorant on these matters that a writer of the
same school of “ thought ” ventured to publish an
article on Mithraism and kindred subjects in the
Nineteenth Century—and After a few years ago, in
which the following passage occurs :—
“. . . Just1 as the religion of Isis2 did, [Mithraism]
resembled that of Christ in being a religion of in
ward holiness, of austere self-discipline and purity;
but the details of its resemblance are incomparably
more close and curious. . . . According to Mithraic
theology, God, considered in His totality, is a Being
so infinite and so transcendent that His direct con
nexion with man and the universe is inconceivable.
In order to become the father of man and Creator,
He manifested Himself in a second personality,
namely Mithra, who was in his cosmic character
identified with the ‘ unconquered sun,’ and, as a
moral and intellectual being, was the Divine Word
or Reason, and, in more senses than one, the
‘ Mediator ’ between man and the Most High. . . .
This Divine Saviour came into the world as an
infant. His first worshippers were shepherds; and
the day of his nativity was December 25th. His
followers preached a severe and rigid morality, chief
among their virtues being temperance, chastity, re
nunciation and self-control. . . . They had seven
sacraments, of which the most important were
baptism, confirmation, and an Eucharistic Supper, at
which the communicants partook of the divine nature
of Mithra under the species of bread and wine.”
1 Nineteenth Century for September, 1905, p. 496.
2 Vide p. 85.
�6
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
If we know all this about Mithra, we know a great
deal, and Mr. Robertson is too modest in speaking
of our knowledge as being very slight on the subject.
Noticing that all the phrases which are employed
in the above extracts are those used in Christian
theology, some of them of quite recent coinage,
others found in Holy Scripture, and most actually
copied from the English Authorised Version of the
Bible, we enquire with great interest what Mithraic
literature there is whence these modern exponents
of the faith learnt all the exact details which they so
graphically lay before us. Perhaps we carry our
researches further and look for Mithraic Scriptures
in the “ Sacred Books of the East” series. We do
not find them there, nor is the reason far to seek.
There are no Mithraic Scriptures extant.
A German writer, A. Dieterich, indeed, not long
since published a Greek document, edited from a
papyrus now in Paris, which he called a Mithraic
Liturgy.1 Possibly it is Mithraic, though the great
authority on the subject, Prof. Cumont, denies this,
but it is certainly not a liturgy, nor does it state
one single doctrine of Mithraism. It does not even
form the one solitary exception which is said to
prove the rule.
All the materials upon which our knowledge of
Mithraism, properly so called, depends are contained
in Prof. Cumont’s Textes et Monuments Figures relatifs
aux Mysteres de Mithra? A short English transla
tion without the original quotations has also ap
peared. It is easy for anyone who is really in
earnest upon the subject, therefore, to ascertain ex
actly how much and how little we know about
Mithraic theology. He will find that we have no
proof whatever of the greater part of the “facts”
1 A. Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie.
2 Two vols., Bruxelles, 1899-1906.
(Teubner, Leipzig, 1903.)
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
7
stated in the extracts given above. The writers who
endeavour to represent Mithra as a “ Pagan Christ ”
have openly borrowed the phrases they use from
Christianity itself, and less honestly still do they
read Christian doctrines into Mithraism. Besides the
few sculptures which have been found representing
Mithra’s birth (not from a Virgin, but) from a rock,
and his killing a bull, these writers depend upon the
references to Mithraism which a few Christian and
heathen, mostly Greek and Latin, authors make.
An earlier stage of the worship of Mithra is, how
ever, known to us from certain parts of the ancient
Sacred Books of India and Persia. These we shall
have to examine, in order to enquire whether they
lend any support whatever to such assertions as
those which we are considering.
Mithra was worshipped by the ancient Aryans of
both India and Persia before and after their separa
tion from one another. The verses in the Rig- Veda
and the Avesta in which he is mentioned, assign him
such lofty attributes that very probably at a remote
period of antiquity he did represent a by no means
degraded conception of the Divine. Such lofty ideas
about God we find in some measure in the most
ancient records of all religions which we are able to
investigate. But in all Ethnic faiths the conception
becomes gradually debased, and Mithra forms no
exception.
In the Rig- Veda, Mithra (or, as he is there styled,
Mitra) appears for the most part in close connexion
with Varuna or the personified “ Heaven.” He is
sometimes associated with other gods, and is rarely
alone. His name signifies “ Friend,” and he is styled
priyatamas nrinam, “ most beloved by men ” (R.V.
Mandala vii., Hy. 62, v. 4). Varuna and he be
hold all things through their common Eye, the
Sun, but they are spoken of as two distinct gods
�8
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
(R.V., Mand. vii., Hy. 61, v. i). Mitra is the eldest
of the seven Adityas or sons of Aditi, the goddess
of the infinite expanse, and her husband Kasyapa.
“He is greater than earth and sky; he supports all
the gods ” (R.V., Mand. iii., Hy. 59, vv. 7 and 8). But
as in Vedic times Varuna himself had already begun
to give way to inferior gods, and gradually to cease to
be worshipped, so Mitra too was evidently receding
into oblivion.
In Persia also it is certain that Zoroastrianism
tended to lower the position which he had previously
held in men’s minds. The Avesta does not include
him among the seven Amesha Spentas, or “ Bountiful
Immortals,” who correspond with the Adityas of
India. Yet in some passages language is used of
him which shews that there was a tendency to regard
him as a rival to Ahura Mazda (Ormazd) himself.
To counteract this perhaps he was sometimes said to
have been created by the latter of equal dignity, as
we read in Yasht x., 1:—
“Ahura Mazda said to beneficent Zarathustra
(Zoroaster), ‘ Then, when I created (set forth) Mithra,
owner of broad pastures, O beneficent one, then I
rendered him as great in worshipfulness, as great in
venerableness, as even myself, Ahura Mazda? ”
As he was associated with Varuna in the Rig- Veda
so in the Avesta we sometimes find him worshipped
in connexion with Ahura Mazda, as for instance in
Yasht x., v. 145 :—
“ Mithra, Ahura, the lofty ones, the imperishable,
the righteous, do we praise: both stars and moon
and sun, over the baresman-twigs: Mithra, lord of all
the provinces, do we honour.”
Mithra was regarded as the deity who punished
untruth and breach of faith, and his wisdom was
such that we are told {Yasht x., v. 107), “Greater
natural wisdom attendeth not earthly mortal in the
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
9
world than even the natural wisdom which attendeth
heavenly Mithra.” But he soon became identi
fied with the Sun, or perhaps with the fravashi
or Genius which ruled the latter, for v, 136 of the
same Yasht says of him :—
“ Mithra, owner, of broad pastures, the watchful
one, do we honour, him whom red swift yoked steeds
draw in a chariot with one golden wheel: and his
spear-points are all-resplendent if one bears offerings
towards his abode.”
Here we notice his “one wheel” (cakkra—\he
Sanskrit cakray also meaning “ disc of the sun ”), his
red steeds, his “ spear-points all-resplendent,” that is
to say, the rays of the sun. Hence in later Mithraism
the god is represented as shooting an arrow into
a rock (the sky or a cloud) and bringing out water.
So too he kills the bull (that is, he fertilizes the
ground) by striking him with his knife, that is, with
the solar rays.
Mithra not only maintains good on earth, but he
also aids Ahura Mazda in the age-long contest with
Anro-Mainyus (Ahriman) and his creatures. As the
sun at night visits the Underworld, so Mithra
becomes one of the deities who govern the region of
the dead. Hence at the end of the world, when men
come to be tried and endeavour to cross the Chinvat
bridge, Mithra is to be associated with Sraosha and
Rashnu in the task of judging them. Even now he
is considered to be one of the deities to whom wor
ship is due. Hence in the Pahlavi “Patel” or Con
fession, the penitent acknowledges his offence
“ Before the Creator Ormazd and the Ameshospands
and before the good Law of the Mazda-worshippers,
before Mithra, Srosh and Rashnu, before the heavenly
Izeds, before the earthly I zeds,” as well as before the
spirit of Zoroaster and the religious officials of his
faith.
�10
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Professor Hermann Oldenberg styles Mithra “ the
extremely ancient Sun-god,” and rightly says that he
was “ undoubtedly one of the most prominent figures
in the popular faith of the Iranian peoples, and also
in the worship of the Achaemenian kings.” Though
his name does not occur in Darius’ Inscriptions, yet
Artaxerxes Mnemon and Artaxerxes Ochus couple
him with Ahura Mazda and the goddess Anahita
when they pray to these deities for the protection of
their empire. In Darius’ time, although the “ clan
gods” are at least once mentioned as worthy of
honour, yet otherwise Ahura Mazda is spoken of in
terms which would befit a monotheist. But even
in the Avesta itself we fipd polytheism fully adopted.
In the Vendidad (Fargand xix. § 13) Ahura Mazda
bids Zoroaster invoke “Limitless Time” (Zrvdn
Akarana1} as well as Vayu the atmosphere, the
Winds, and “ the holy, fair daughter of Ahura Mazda ”
(Spenta Armaiti, the Genius of the Earth). It is not
at all strange, therefore, to find that the fullydeveloped Mithraism of later times associated itself
with the worship of all kinds of other deities.
We have seen that Mr. J. M. Robertson in his
clever work of imagination, confounding Zoroastrian
ism with much later Mithraism to some degree,
informs us that the Khorda Avesta styles Mithra
“The Word,” and hence would have us form a
certain conclusion regarding the origin of the Chris
tian doctrine of the Divine Reason. In proof of his
assertion he quotes chapter xxvi. 107, of the work
cited. There is no such chapter in existence, if we
may consider the standard edition of the original
1 Mr. J. M. Robertson’s remark that Mithraism borrowed its enig
matical “Supreme God,” Kronos-Zervan (which he calls “a Baby
lonian conception ”) in Armenia, and was thus “prepared in Armenia
for its cosmopolitan career in the western world ” (Pagan Christs,
p. 302) is therefore lacking in accuracy.
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
ii
text, Professor Karl Geldner’s, as an authority. But
possibly this is merely a printer’s error, though an
unfortunate one. We may remark, however, that
the title of “ Word,” given to Mithra alike in Pagan
Christs and in the Nineteenth Century article we
have quoted, also fails to occur in the Avesta. Nor
is Mithra there entitled the Divine Reason. Mr.
Robertson also tells us that Mithra is associated with
the “Word” in Fargand, xix. 15, of the Vendidad.
If this were true, it would shew that Mithra was not
identified with the Divine Word, though this identi
fication has previously been distinctly asserted by
our exponent of Mithraism. Where, then, does the
Logos doctrine as derived in some measure from
the latter come in? But the fact is that the Avesta
nowhere contains any doctrine of the Divine Logos
at all. The proper translation of the verse runs thus
(it is supposed to be spoken by Ahura Mazda):—
“ A speech (yakhshem) did Zoroaster utter to me:
‘ I invoke, O Ahura Mazda, Righteous One, the
Creation, the Law, I invoke Mithra, owner of wide
pastures, well-armed, most brilliant in his conquests,
most victorious in his conquests ; I, grasping in hand
weapons against the head of the demons, invoke
Sraosha, Ashi, the well-formed.” The word vakhshem
here evidently means “ speech,” for the very speech
itself follows in the verse, as is evident from the
translation. It is not Ahura Mazda’s but Zoroaster’s.
It has no nearer connexion with Mithra than with
the other beings and things invoked therein along
with him. We may be pardoned for failing to find
any doctrine of the Divine Logos here.
Possibly, however, Mr. Robertson intended rather
to refer to the fourteenth verse in the same chapter.
There the phrase mdthro spento, “sacred text,” has
sometimes been rather carelessly rendered “ Holy
Word.” He may have been misled by some such
�12
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
translation, a thing impossible for a person at all
acquainted with the original language. Mathro is
the same as the Sanskrit mantra, “ a hymn,” and the
context shews that the reference here is to the
sacred text of the Avesta, which was supposed to be
revealed by Ahura Mazda, “whose spirit is the
sacred text ” {yenhe urva mathro spento), as this verse
states. The passage in Mr. Robertson’s book which
we are criticising, in accordance with his already
quoted invitation, is a very admirable instance of the
danger incurred by depending upon an English
version of an Oriental work. Our author first reads
Christian theology into books in which nothing of
the kind occurs, and then triumphantly points out
how clearly such doctrines have been derived from
Ethnic sources!
Having thus far dealt with Mithra in Vedic Hin
duism and in Avestic Zoroastrianism, we have now
to consider the origin and progress of Mithraism,
properly so called, which differs from both at least
as much as Buddhism does from Hinduism. To
confound these religions with one another is hardly
a proof of competence to discuss the subject.
The first European writer who mentions Mithra is
the old Greek historian Herodotus. His worship was
then apparently confined to Persia itself. Herodotus
(i. 131) tells us that the Persians gave the name
Mithra to the goddess Aphrodite or Venus, whom he
associates with the abominations of Mylitta-worship
at Babylon. This is doubtless a mistake, since
Mithra was a god, not a goddess. But his very mis
take gives good reason to surmise that he knew
of Mithra’s close association with the licentious rites
early connected with Anahita, a Persian goddess
whom the Greeks called Anaitis. This is the first
reason we have for doubting whether the religion of
Mithra “ resembled that of Christ in being a religion
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
13
of inward holiness, of austere self-discipline and
purity,” as the writer in the Nineteenth Century,
already quoted, asserts. We shall find plenty of
other proofs to the contrary to adduce further on.
Even in early days in Persia, though Mithra was the
guardian of Truth, he is not asserted to be that of
Purity. As he was said to fertilise the earth with
his rays, and was early associated with Anahita
(which Mr. Robertson admits, p. 344, and which we
learn from the Inscriptions of the Achaemenian
Kings), and since it is acknowledged {Pagan Christs,
p. 339), that this Anahita was a goddess of “fruitful
ness and nutriency,” Mithra can hardly have been
ever regarded as encouraging this particular virtue.
It seems almost a pity to mar the fair picture pre
sented to us by the poetic imagination of our
opponents, but our appeal is to fact and not to
fiction.
Alexander the Great’s conquests brought Persia
into close connexion with the Western world. Hence
it was that Mithra-worship, more or less affected and
corrupted by the Babylonian cult of the Sun-god
Shamshu perhaps, gradually became better known in
other lands. It seems never to have spread among
the Greeks. But when the Cilician pirates, who
would naturally be drawn to the service of “a humane
and beneficent God ” and a religion “ of inward holi
ness, of austere self-discipline and purity,” were
captured by Pompey (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, ch.
xxiv.) and brought to Italy, they introduced into Rome
the worship of their god Mithra (B.c. 68). For many
years no attempt seems to have been made to spread
the religion, and it was still confined in the main to
slaves and others who had come from the East. It
formed an “ intimate union ” at Rome with “ the mys
teries of the Great Mother,” Cybele (Cumont, Mysteries
of Mithra, English version, p. 19, cf. pp. 30, 86, 87,
�i4
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
179, 198), than which few rites were more licentious.
Everyone is aware of the infamous practices of her
priests, the Galli, and of the association therewith of the
story of Attis. The original conception of Mithra had
been, as we have seen, a noble one; but there seems too
much reason to fear that, in company with that of
Anahita, it had undergone moral degradation. Other
wise it would not have been possible for Mithra
and Cybele to have been worshipped “in intimate
communion with each other throughout the entire
extent of the Empire” (Cumont, p. 179), or at least
in every part of it into which Mithraism finally
spread. For, though Mr. Robertson says: “ Mith
raism was, in point of range, the most nearly universal
religion of the Western world in the early centuries
of the Christian era” (p. 289), yet this statement
requires modification. Cumont informs us that, at
first at least, “ The influence of this small band of
sectaries on the great mass of the Roman population
was virtually as infinitesimal as is to-day the influence
of Buddhist societies in modern Europe ” {Mysteries,
p. 37). “ It was not until the end of the first century
that the name of Mithra,” he says, “ began to be
generally bruited abroad in Rome.” In Plutarch’s
time (46-125 A.D.) “the Mazdean sect already enjoyed
a certain notoriety in the Occident.” Of Roman
writers the first to mention it is Statius in his Thebais
(Book I., fin.), about 80 A.D. Then, and throughout
its whole subsequent course in the West, the worship
of Mithra was recognised as being simply and solely
adoration of the Sun, with whom inscriptions found
especially in Germany, but also in Dacia, Southern
Gaul, England, and other countries, openly identify
the god. His shrines or chapels were usually under
ground, and in those which have been discovered are
found in Greek and Latin such inscriptions as “ To
the Sungod Mithra,” “To Mithra the unconquered Sun.”
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
15
Mithraism was largely a soldiers’ religion, and this
explains why it was carried by the legions to so
many parts of the Empire. The worshippers of
Mithra “rated strength higher than gentleness, and
preferred courage to lenity. From their long associa
tion with barbarous religions there was perhaps a
residue of cruelty in their ethics” (Cumont, p. 142).
The oldest Mithraic inscriptions found at Rome date
from the reigns of Trajan (A.D. 98-117) and Hadrian
(a.D. 117-138). Sculptures represent Mithra as a
youth wearing a Phrygian cap, starting forth from a
rock. In his hand he holds a torch. In others he is
a vigorous young man with one knee planted upon
a bull, into whose neck he has driven a dagger. Boys
holding torches stand by him. A dog licks up the
flowing blood of the bull, as sometimes does a serpent
also. A scorpion has seized the bull, and a raven
stands near at hand. These probably are connected
with the signs of the Zodiac through which the Sun
passes. Elsewhere Mithra as the Solar archer shoots
an arrow into the rock or cloud, whence flows a stream
of water.
Porphyry, on the authority of Eubulus, tells us that
the worshippers of Mithra were divided into a number
of different Orders, all believing in the Transmigration
of Souls, and that the members of the highest order,
the “ Fathers,” who were styled Eagles and Hawks,
abstained from animal food. He says that the
“ Initiated ” who took part in their “ orgies ” were, if
men called Lions, if women, Hyaenas. Some say that
there were seven classes,1 Ravens, Griffins, Soldiers,
Lions, Persians, Sun-runners, and Fathers, the Ravens
being the lowest order who waited on the others.
Tertullian says that they had “ virgins and continent
men” among them. Others deny that women were
1 It is to the initiatory rites undergone on entering these that modern
Mythology gives the title of “ Sacraments.”
�i6
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
allowed to join at all in the worship of Mithra,
and say that they were compelled to adore Cybele
instead. Nonnus tells us that eighty different kinds
of tortures were inflicted upon those who were being
initiated into the Mysteries: others say twelve, among
which are mentioned the test by fire and water, by
hunger, thirst and cold, by flogging, bleeding, branding
with hot irons, and the threat of being murdered.
Some at least of these, in particular the scourging
and the ablutions, originated in the ancient Persian
rites (Cumont, p. 6), others in Stoic ideas, which had
a “profound influence” on Mithraism. The religion
probably borrowed from Persia belief in a resurrec
tion, if it was not rather in transmigration. The
doctrine of a “renovation” or resurrection is found
only in very late portions of the Avesta, composed
when the Persians had for hundreds of years had
large Israelite colonies dwelling in the very midst of
their empire, at Ecbatana (Achmetha, now Hamadan)
and elsewhere. There can be no doubt that it was
derived from Israel. They had the custom of
“ baptising ” certain of their number (if we may use
the term baptism in the loose way in which our
opponents do) in the blood of a bull. This, the
taurobolion, was borrowed from the worship of Cybele.
Sacrifices of more than one kind were offered in their
subterranean temples. Lampridius (Commodus, cap.
ix.) tells us that the latter Emperor (a.d. 180-192) was
admitted to take part in the mystic rites of Mithraism,
and that as part of the ceremony he caused a human
being to be murdered in reality (and not only in
pretence, as at that time seems usually to have been
the case). But amid the strange and terrible rites by
means of which the neophyte was initiated on
ordinary occasions was, Cumont says, “a simulated
murder, which in its origin was undoubtedly real”
(p. 161). The Church historian Socrates tells us that
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
17
in A.D. 362, when a deserted temple of Mithra at
Alexandria was being removed, many human skulls
were discovered, which proved that human sacrifices
had been offered there (Bk. III., chap, ii., §§ 2-6).
One of the noteworthy things about Mithraism is
the way in which it won the favour of so many of
the Roman Emperors, generally the worst of them.
When King Tiridates of Armenia came to Rome,
Nero (A.D. 54-68) expressed a wish to be initiated
into the mysteries, and Tiridates adored in Nero an
emanation from Mithra himself (Cumont, pp. 85, 86).
The Emperors Aurelian, Diocletian, Galerius, and
Licinius, as well as Julian the Apostate, openly
favoured Mithraism, which was then at the zenith
of its power, and was destined to fade away gradually
before the spread of the Gospel. Julian (A.D. 361-3),
being an apostate from Christianity, seems to have
applied to Mithra some Christian titles.
Mithraism, “ far from hostility towards the ancient
Graeco-Roman beliefs . . . sought to accommodate
itself to them, in appearance at least. A pious mystic
could, without renouncing his faith, dedicate a votive
inscription to the Capitoline triad, Jupiter, Juno, and
Minerva ” (Cumont, pp. 175-7). In the fourth century
the high priests of the religion “ were found perform
ing the highest offices of the priesthood in temples
of all sorts ” (ibid?). “ In the region of the Rhine
the Celtic divinities were worshipped in the crypts of
the Persian god, or at least alongside of them.”
Professor Cumont shews clearly that it was to
Mithraism that we must trace the assumption of
divine titles by the emperors of Rome. The attempt
to supersede all other worship by the adoration of
the Emperor, regarded as in some degree the in
carnation of the Sun-god, was blasted, after a fierce
struggle carried on for centuries, only by the faithful
ness of the Christians, who preferred death to apostasy.
c
�i8
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Therefore a battle to the death continued for many
generations between Christianity and Mithraism. It
culminated in the utter defeat of the latter and its
ultimate extinction. Yet we are now gravely assured
that Christians mistook Mithraism for their own
faith, and adopted as their creed the leading tenets
of their deadliest foe. What they had previously
believed about their Divine Master and Lord, for
whom so many of them had died by fire in Nero’s
gardens, by the sword, by the teeth of wild beasts,
through forced labour in deadly mines, and by in
describable and manifold tortures, was, according to
our modern mythologists, so vague and ill-defined
that it practically vanished from their minds, leaving
room for the tenets of the great rival faith. Or, if
we are not prepared to believe all this, we are invited
to credit the assertion that the very first disciples
of Christ, the men who have given us the New
Testament, completely forgot all that they had seen
and heard of His life and teaching, and quite inno
cently fell into the error of attributing to Him the
details of a Mithraic myth which, in the form in
which its modern expounders have stated it, had not
yet come into existence !
Mr. Robertson informs us, as we have seen, that
Mithra figures “ as supernaturally born of a Virgin
mother and of the Most High God” in the fourth
and fifth centuries of the Christian era. In proof of
this he refers to the reply of the Christian bishops
of Armenia to the Persian viceroy Mihr Nerseh’s
attack upon Christianity, as quoted by Elisaeus
(Eghishe) the Armenian historian. Nothing whatever
of the sort occurs there. The reply contains only
two references to Mithra. In one of these the
Persians are quoted as saying Mihr astouads i knoche
dsanau, “ the god Mithra was born of a woman ”;
in the other we are informed that a Persian sage had
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
19
affirmed that Mihr astouads mairadsin e i mardkane,
“The god Mithra is incestuously born of a mortal
mother” (Elisaeus, Concerning the Vardans and the
Armenian War, Armenian original, Venice, 1864,
Book II., pp. 53 and 57). It requires a vigorous
imagination to read Virgin-birth into these state
ments. Mithraic sculptures in Europe do not even
recognise Mithra’s birth of a mortal at all, but uni
formly represent him as springing from the “ Petra
Genetrix,” or “Rock Mother.” Nor does another
ancient Armenian writer, Eznik, say anything to
support Mr. Robertson’s contention, though he tells
us that the Persians believed that the sun {Khorashef
would die {Refutation of Heresies, Arm. original,
Constantinople edition, 1873, Book II., pp. I33> T34)Nor does the ’A/7ra6avaTi<Tiu.6s, published by A. Die
terich under the title Eine Mtthrasliturgie, contain
one syllable about Mithra’s virgin-birth. The tenet,
in short, owes its origin to modern mythology.
It is not difficult to understand the genuine legend.
Mithra is represented as born of a rock, because in
Vedic Sanskrit the word asman, and in Avestic
Persian asman means not only rock but also cloud and
sky. The Sun-god does rise in the sky. Mithra’s
struggle with the bull and his slaughter of the
animal, reluctantly undertaken at Ahura Mazda’s
command, are at least once in sculpture so repre
sented as to give his countenance a look of re
luctance. This has been seized upon by some
modern opponents of Christianity. By depicting
the face only of the god, apart from the rest of the
engraving, they endeavour to support their bestowal
of the title of “Suffering Saviour” on Mithra. As
the Avestic word Gaus means “ the earth ” as well as
“ cow, ox, bull,” and as the word denoting the animal’s
“soul” (urvanj comes from the same root as does
urvara (plant, tree), the myth evidently shews forth
�20
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the fact that by piercing the earth with his dagger
like rays the Sun enables the vegetable creation to
spring forth.
Mithra was originally the god of a pastoral people
in Persia. Hence it is not surprising that a rude
sculpture depicts two herdsmen standing near the
spot where he emerges from the rock or cloud. But
our modern mythologists mistake these for shepherds,
and on this slender substructure inform us that
one of the beliefs of the Mithraites was that “this
Divine Saviour came into the world as an infant,”
and “ His first worshippers were shepherds.” Having
thus invented a legend for which they have no good
and sufficient authority, and bestowed a title borrowed
from Christianity upon Mithra, they speak of a
“ close and curious resemblance ” between their
newly-coined myth and the Gospel narrative of
Christ’s birth.
In a precisely similar way they inform us that
Mithra was “ in more senses than one the~‘ Mediator’
between man and the Most High.” The sole founda
tion for this confident assertion is Plutarch’s statement
that, in the religion of the Zoroastrians, Mithra was
called
because he stood midway between the
Good Principal, Ormazd, and the Evil Principal,
Ahriman {De Iride et Osiride, cap. 46). Our
opponents’ deduction from these premisses is doubt
less ingenious, but can scarcely be denominated
scholarly or even honest. Plutarch goes on to say
that the Persians worshipped and offered sacrifices
to both the Good and the Evil Principle, and that,
mixing a wolf’s blood with the juice of the moly (by
which he doubtless means the Z^w^-plant), they
used to pour out the libation “in a sunless place.”
As his statements are incorrect about the Zoroastrians,
they may refer to the Mithraists, who worshipped in
caves. If his worshippers really held him to be a
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
21
“ middle-man ” between Ormazd and Ahriman, we
can the better understand Mithra’s undoubted associa
tion with Cybele, Baal, and other such immoral
deities. But this hardly seems consonant with .the
statement that his religion was one “ of inward
holiness, of austere self-discipline and purity.”
We are asked to believe that there existed a
striking likeness between “the repeated lustrations
and ablutions ” of the Mithraists and Christian bap
tism, which was never repeated, and between their
sacred repast, at which the initiated ate bread and
drank water together, and the Lord’s Supper—
especially because it is conjectured that sometimes
wine was mixed with the water. It is apparently
forgotten that lustrations and sacrificial banquets are
among the most ancient and widespread rites of
nearly all Ethnic religions, and that they existed
among the Jews ages before Mithraism came into
contact with the Western world. Any resemblances
in this respect between Christianity and Mithraism
are more apparent than real, and they are far more
than counterbalanced by the vast differences between
the two religions in spirit, practice, and (as far as
anything can be ascertained of Mithraic doctrines)
belief. Even in connexion with the sacred banquet
of the Mithraists this is observable. “ In a picture
of the ‘ Banquet of the Seven Priests ’ in the Mithraic
Catacomb there are found phrases of the ‘ Eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die ’ order,” as Mr. Robertson
himself has to admit {Pagan Christs, p. 345)—a
spirit very different from the Christian. It is true
that he endeavours to remove the effect of this ad
mission by the perfectly gratuitous supposition that
these words were “ inscribed in a hostile spirit by the
hands of Christian invaders of the Mithraic retreat.”
But a cause which requires to be supported by such
baseless suppositions is self-condemned. We require
�22
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
at least a small amount of fact to prove his main
point, and we are given instead theories, conjectures,
and imagination enough to produce a new Vera
Historia of a modern Lucian.
When Ahriman shall have done his worst, accord
ing to old Persian belief (whether accepted by Mithraists or not we have no means of knowing), Mithra
will kill another marvellous bull, mingle its fat with
wine, and by giving his people this beverage will
confer immortality upon them. But of “ the burial
and resurrection of the Lord, the Mediator and
Saviour, burial in a rock tomb and resurrection from
that tomb,” we find not a word said even in the
ancient Persian writings. As we have no Mithraic
Scriptures that can be consulted, the information
which Mr. Robertson gives us on this important
subject cannot be derived from any authority of
greater weight than his own fancy. In works of
fiction this gift would be invaluable, but even in the
twentieth century we really need something more
reliable than this in support of asserted facts. It is
perhaps strange that we do not find mention of
Mithra’s return to the “ rock ” or cloud whence he, as
Sun-god, sprang. Why should not the Sun’s setting
be commemorated as well as his rising? But the
fact remains.
With regard to our Lord, it is somewhat too late
in the day to endeavour to revive the exploded
theory that He never existed, but was merely a per
sonification of the Sun. Archbishop Whately’s
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte,
though written to confute Hume, would equally
reduce this Solar myth hypothesis to the absurd.
On this point we need say nothing further.
The religion of Mithra which deified the Csesars,
permitted its professors to fraternise with the wor
shippers of Anaitis, Cybele, Jupiter, and Baal, and
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
23
to adore these and other deities, bathed its devotees
in bull’s blood, and feigned, if it did not practice,
ritual murder at the initiation of its neophytes, cannot
by any imaginable process of reasoning be identified
with the faith which sternly condemned each and
every one of these practices, and whose professors
died by the extremity of agonising torture rather
than sprinkle a pinch of incense on the fire burning
before Caesar’s statue. But the study of Mithrais.m
is valuable because it enables us to see what Chris
tianity would have been had it originated in the wor
ship of the Sun. The rise, progress, and downfall
of Mithraism shew us also how great is man’s felt
need of a Saviour, and how utterly insufficient to
satisfy it was such a “ pagan Christ ” as Mithra, who
was not incarnated, who neither suffered nor died nor
rose again for men, and was held to be the Inter
mediary between the Spirit of Good and the Spirit
of Evil.
v
�fl
THE “INDIAN CHRIST” OF SOME
MODERN MYTHOLOGISTS
'
T N all ages and in every land universal experience
has convinced men of the truth of the saying of
the ancient Arabian sage, “ Man is bom unto trouble
as the sparks fly upward.” Not only does sorrow fall
to men’s lot and cause them to shed more tears than
would fill the oceans, according to Buddha’s genuinely
Eastern hyperbole, but death itself awaits them, that
“ Shadow feared of man,” ready to strike them down
when they least expect it, certain to do so some day.
In varying degrees, too, the consciousness of guilt,
the reproach of conscience, the dread of punishment,
have ever pursued mankind, in many lands leading
even to the sacrifice of one’s own children in order to
atone for sin. In some savage tribes at the present
day, terror of the unseen evil powers which are sup
posed to surround them is so great that it seems to
have swallowed up all loftier ideas of religion. Even
in the most highly civilised communities of ancient
days the existence of similar beliefs is evidenced by
the discovery of numberless charms to avert the evil
eye, the extensive use of amulets, and the immense
importance attached to all kinds of omens.
Under these circumstances it was but natural that
men should seek some means of escape from so many
evils. Various methods of attaining this end were
devised. But man’s consciousness of his own sinful
ness and his inability to contend successfully with
such mighty invisible foes made him seek elsewhere
24
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
25
for a Deliverer, one who would save him, it might be
from death, it might be from sin, or at least from its
consequences here and hereafter.
If, as we have the best reason for believing, there
still lingered in the world in early ages, and some
times in much later times, some dim recollection of
the Divine Promise of the coming of One who
should bruise—or rather crush—the Serpent’s head
(Gen. iiio 15), it will not seem strange to find among
different nations the conception of someone, man or
God, who had arisen, or would yet arise, to deliver
men from sin and death. Amid his many woes, man
would naturally cling to the hope which such a
promise would inspire: and he would be led to form
some conception of the nature and work of the
looked-for Saviour. Those among us who do not
accept the Biblical statement that this promise was
actually given must at least admit that, even apart
from it, such a hope not only might spring up in
human hearts, but has actually manifested itself in a
variety of forms in different parts of the world and
among nations of various stocks.
So well established is this fact that attempts have
actually been made to prove that all our Christian
conceptions of the Saviour of mankind are either
borrowed from those of the heathen or have origi
nated in exactly the same way. A sufficient answer
to this, perhaps, is to point out that we have the
historical Christ. We have, therefore, no need of
theory to account for Him when we have the fact.
But it is none the less instructive to learn some of
the leading ideas that have come into existence
among mankind, apart from direct revelation, and to
see how in some cases men have evolved ideal
saviours from among their gods, and how, in others,
they have almost insensibly so coloured their delinea
tions of past or future, real or imaginary, human
�26
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
beings that we are thus able to understand what
kind of a Deliverer men yearned for. In studying the
most ancient records which deal with these matters,
however, we must be careful to restrain the free play
of imagination, in which not a few recent writers on
the subject have indulged, and to confine ourselves
to the recital of actual facts. Strict adherence to the
truth is the only way of learning any lessons which
these primaeval or even less ancient traditions, myths,
or forecasts have to teach us. So studied they are
full of interest and instruction. Among other things
we may learn from them how low and degraded
human ideas often are, and how far short of the
Divine reality men’s highest hopes have fallen.
One of the ideal “ Saviours ” who are still adored
in India is Krishna. At the present time in that
country an attempt is being made to represent him
to the people as an Indian Christ, so to speak. The
object of this is to prevent the spread of Christianity
by substituting an indigenous deity for a foreign
object of worship. A work styled The Imitation of
Krishna by its very name shews this only too clearly.
Even in England it has recently been asserted that
there exists such a marvellous likeness between the
story of Krishna and the Gospel accounts of our
Lord’s life and work that the Indian god is worthy of
being styled a “ Pagan Christ.” People assure us
that the Gospel narrative is largely borrowed from
the Indian myth, and that detail after detail of the
latter is servilely reproduced in the New Testament
and credulously accepted by Christians as a genuine
fact of history. Yet it is acknowledged by even
writers of the modern mythological school, if we may
so term them, that the legends regarding Krishna
which are to be found in circulation in Indian litera
ture are of very late date. No one can tell exactly
when these books were composed, but the earliest
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
27
of them are at the very least several hundreds
of years later than the composition of the Gospels.
On this point there is no controversy among scholars.
One of the modern mythologists tries to get over
this difficulty by saying, “ The lateness of the
Puranic stories in literary form is no argument
against their antiquity ” (Mr. Vivian Phelips, The
Churches and Modern Thought, 2nd ed., p. 137). We
leave others to admire the logic here displayed, merely
observing that it just as well that we Christians have
not to ask people to accept the records of Christ’s
life upon such a slender foundation. How the first
disciples of Christ in Palestine could possibly copy
Indian myths ages before they had come into exist
ence, or at least before we have even the very slightest^
evidence of their having been invented, is a puzzle to
the ordinary mind. It requires a great development
of the credulity so conspicuous in the writings of our
“ friends on the other side ” to enable anyone to
accept such a theory. The difficulty is still further
increased when we come to consider the legends
about Krishna actually current among his devotees.
For, as we shall see, there is scarcely the faintest
resemblance between them and the Gospel narrative.
But were the resemblance a thousand times as
great as it is, since there is no doubt which of the
two accounts is far the earlier, it would be clear to
most men that the borrowing, if borrowing there be,
must have been from the earlier narrative, to wit the
Christian, and not conversely.
Another writer—a lady this time—gravely invites
us to believe that “ The ideal which Jesus Christ held
up to His followers is essentially the same as that
which Krishna proposed to Arjuna” in the Bhagavad
Gita. “ The Gospel (!) of Krishna and the Gospel of
Christ have in fact the same ultimate aim, to open
to the human soul a way of escape from the dualism
�28
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of matter and spirit in which humanity is at present
involved ” {Hibbert Journal, October, 1907).
We leave it to anyone who has even a very slight
acquaintance with the New Testament to judge
whether this account of the object of Christ’s Gospel
is in any imaginable sense correct. Mr. Vivian
Phelips tells that Krishna was “ born of a virgin,
Devaki ”: and he assures his credulous readers that,
ere Christ was born,“ the whole world had already
been conversant for ages past with stories of suffering
Saviours, similar in all essentials to the Gospel narra
tives” {op. cit. p. 161). Whether this be so or not
we shall soon see as far as Krishna is concerned,
apart altogether from the lateness of the myth.
Some study of the original authorities from which
sober students must draw all their information re
garding Krishna—the tenth Book of the Bhagavata
Purana, the fifth Book of the Vishnu Purana, the
Harivamsa, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavad
Gita,—compels us with reluctance to come to the
conclusion that this gentleman’s long account of
Krishna is certainly not drawn from these, the only
genuine authorities on the- subject. Can it be that
the modern mythologist is in reality a romancer,
appealing to his imagination for his “ facts ” ? Even
the totally unreliable Indian myths about Krishna,
comparatively modern though they are, do not sup
port at all adequately many of the statements made
by such writers. If a writer on the subject has really
lived in India for years, he should at least know the
notorious Prem Sagar, the Hindi version of the part
of the Bhagavata Purana which deals with Krishna.
In it we are informed that Devaki, Krishna’s mother,
so far from being a virgin at his conception, had
already before that borne seven children to her hus
band, Wasudeva {Prem Sagar, chap. iii.). What re
liance therefore can be placed upon a writer who
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
29
asserts that Krishna’s Virgin-birth is a distinctive
feature in the legend ?
He proceeds, however, to tell us that “ The ancient
hymns of the Rig-Veda furnish the germs of those
Sun-myths which tell of the death, resurrection, and
ascension of a Virgin-born Saviour” (op.cit., p. 141).
The errors in this sentence are almost as numerous
as the words. Whatever else Krishna may be, he
assuredly is not a “ sun-myth,” any more than he is
a “suffering Saviour.” His name, which signifies
“the Black,” probably shews that he was originally
a deity worshipped by the aboriginal inhabitants of
India, and borrowed from them by their Aryan
conquerors. No mention at all of Krishna is to be
found in the Rig- Veda. As in few countries is the
sun “ black,” we find some difficulty in believing that
he was ever a Sun-god, though a trifle like this does
not seriously discourage the credulity of our modern
mythologists. We may imagine them saying, “Why
should not the sun be black ? He is black—during
an eclipse.” We present them with this argument
for all it is worth. It is at least more logical than the
doctrine—inculcated by Mr. Vivian Phelips, not by
the Hindus—that Devaki was a virgin after bearing
her husband seven children.
The Greek writer Megasthenes tells us that a deity,
whom he identifies with Herakles (Hercules), was
worshipped near Methora (Mathura, the present
Mattra) in his own time (306-298 B.C.). Possibly
this was Krishna. If so, this is the first mention we
find of him anywhere. The Chandogya Upanishad
(III., § 17, 6) seems to imply that he was a student
of philosophy. Upon this Sir Alfred Lyall’s {Asiatic
Studies, R.P.A. reprint, p. 21) suggestion that possi
bly he was a religious reformer is based. The earlier
part of the Mahabharata depicts him as a warriorking. Krishna can hardly have played all these
�30
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
parts, and it is probable that he played none of
them. His character and conduct, as depicted for us
in the books most prized by his worshippers, often in
passages unfit for translation, are best described by
saying that they are worthy of the name which
he bears, taking its meaning in a moral sense. His
exploits are evidently fabulous, but, as related in
these books, they consisted mainly in indiscriminate
adultery, varied with a good deal of murder. He is
said to have had eight specially beautiful wives of his
own, besides over 16,000 others, and by them he had
a family of 180,000 sons, all of whom finally killed
one another, or were murdered by their father. It is
a comfort to know that only his eight principal wives
were burnt alive on his funeral pyre, in accordance
with the merciful custom of the Hindus.
Nowhere but in India, where history and fable are
regarded as one and the same thing (itihasaj, would
all this be deemed historical. But, if it be not so,
we have no knowledge of the real Krishna, if he ever
existed. In that famous philosophical poem the
Bhagavad Gita, the author of the work has chosen
to put his own ideas into Krishna’s mouth, much
as if Lucretius had selected Hercules or Bacchus or
some other popular deity as his own mouthpiece, or
just as people nowadays use Mrs. Partington’s name
when they wish to perpetrate a mildly silly joke.
This is not the place to venture upon an account
of the philosophy taught in the poem we have men
tioned. Suffice it to say that in it Krishna, true
to his character as a warrior, disguising himself, acts
as the hero Arjuna’s charioteer, and urges the latter
to overcome his great reluctance to shed the blood
of his relatives. Krishna reminds him that one
should always perform the duties imposed upon him
by his caste. Hence, he argues, since Arjuna belongs
to the Kshattriya or warrior caste, he must fight and
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
31
kill people (Bhag. Gita, Bks. Ill,, 35 ; VIII. 7 ; XL, 33,
34; XVIII., 43, 48). Killing is no murder, he is
assured, because of the transmigration of souls
(Bk. II., 18-22). Krishna argues that, in accordance
with the eclectic philosophy which he teaches, any
one who is possessed of true knowledge (Jndna}
thereby escapes all the evil consequences of sin
(Bk. IV., 36, 37). Such teaching lays the axe at the;
root of the tree of all morality. A modern Hindu
writer, well aware that in the Puranas Krishna is the
impersonation of almost every vice, thus defends and
endeavours to glorify his conduct. “ The being,” he
writes, “ who is equal in virtue as well as in vice,
is to us a grander being than the extremely virtuous
man. . . . Conceive a man who is trying his utmost
to fly from vice to its opposite pole, virtue ; imagine
also a being to whom heat and cold, virtue and vice
are the same, and you will find that the latter is
infinitely superior to the former” (Mulopadhaya,
Imitation of Krishna^ preface, pp. 2, 3). A cause
which requires such reasoning to support it is of
course lost. But what are we to think of those who
venture to compare Krishna with Christ, and who
tell us that “ the Gospel of Krishna and the Gospel
of Christ have, in fact, the same ultimate aim ” ?
Some tell us that the worshippers of Krishna hold
that devotion to him is the means of salvation, and
that this is the same as our Biblical doctrine of
Justification by Faith. But this statement is com
pleted by those who first made it by adding that,
as no such doctrine of devotion (bhakti} is found
elsewhere in Hinduism, it must have been borrowed
from Christianity. This is, no doubt, possible. Yet
a good principle is liable to abuse, and its evil effects
will then be in proportion to its original goodness.
The results of “ devotion ” to Krishna are among the
most pernicious conceivable. All who are aware of
�32
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the conduct of the so-called Vallabhacharyas or sect
of the Maharajas ” and their practice of offering
“ body, mind, and property ” (tan, man, dhan) to their
chiefs, whom they regard as incarnations of Krishna,
will readily admit this. Cases heard before the
High Court at Bombay have revealed almost in
credible vileness and cruelty thereby produced. Yet
Krishna is the deity most honoured in India to-day.
The fabulous history of Krishna, as related es
pecially in the Vishnu Purana, is too long to repeat
here in detail, but we must give an outline of it.
Kansa, who was an incarnation of the demon
Kalanemi, slew the first six of his cousin Devakl’s
children as soon as they were born. Vishnu was
incarnate in the eighth, Krishna, who was black.
Failing in his attempt to find and kill him too, Kansa,
to whom it had been foretold that the child would ulti
mately cause his death, imprisoned Krishna’s parents,
Vasudeva and Devaki, and ordered the murder of
every pious man and every boy of unusual vigour.
Besides many improper exploits which are frankly
dirty and indecent, Krishna on one occasion held up
the mountain Govardhana on the tip of one of his
fingers for seven days to shelter some herdsmen from
a storm. He also slew a demon-bull and some ser
pents of considerable size. Mounted on the wonder
ful bird Garuda, he once went up to the sky to restore
her lost ear-rings to the goddess Aditi. On one
occasion he hospitably entertained a rishi. But
unfortunately he omitted, through mere inadvertence,
to wipe away some fragments of food which had
fallen on the holy man’s foot. Enraged at this want
of respect, the latter declared that his host would be
killed by an arrow in the foot. This came to pass
through an accident, since a hunter one day mistook
the god’s foot for a deer and shot his arrow into it.
Instead of punishing him, Krishna sent him up to
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
33
the sky in a celestial chariot. Dying of his wound,
Krishna was burnt by Arjuna on a funeral pyre,
together with eight of his unfortunate wives. His
parents afterwards burnt themselves alive through
grief.
This is the legend from which some of our
modern sages, with an equal disregard of chronology,
probability, history, and common sense, would have
us believe that the Gospel narrative is derived I
The fact is that those who invented the myths
relating to Krishna “ went upon the analogy of their
own experience” in regard to such questions as
ethical decency and the lack of moral purpose which
is so conspicuous in his character. They never
intended him “to be a model, or a reforming ruler
and teacher of mankind” (Sir Alfred Lyall, op. cit.y
pp. 31, 32). In one sense he is considered by his
worshippers to be a “ Divine Saviour,” not, however,
one who saves “ his people from their sins ” like our
Lord (Matt. i. 21), but one who enables them to live
in the unchecked perpetration of their cherished sins,
which is not quite the same thing. Unfortunately
Krishna has become perhaps the most influential of
the deities now worshipped in India, though it has
well been said by a man of great experience of these
things in that land : “ The stories related of Krishna’s
life do more than anything else to destroy the morals
and corrupt the imagination of the Hindu youth.”
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA AND
MODERN MYTHOLOGY
TA ^E have seen that Mithra is the Sun-god and
* V was acknowledged by Mithraists to be such.
Krishna may or may not have existed as a human
being, but certainly had no connection with any
Solar myth. A third great Oriental hero, Buddha,
was undoubtedly a real man. Attempts to represent
him as a Solar myth may be held to have completely
broken down since the discovery of the Emperor
Asoka’s inscriptions, in one of which Buddha’s birth
place is indicated and the date of his birth indirectly
given. This inscription, though dating about three
hundred years after Buddha’s1 birth, is the earliest
extant document on the subject. Contrast this with
the well ascertained date of the composition of our
Gospels, and the fact that the earliest of St. Paul’s
Epistles can be proved to have been written within
twenty-five years of the Crucifixion. This will en
able the reader to judge for himself of the relative
reliability of Buddhist and Christian documents.
Asoka’s Inscriptions, however, tell us practically
nothing of Buddha’s history except the fact that he
was born in the Lumbini Grove near Taullhwa (in
Nipal), apparently about 557 B.C., and died about
B.c. 477, and that he uttered certain discourses,
none of the names of which correspond with any
part of the present Buddhist Canon, whether we
take that of the Northern or that of the Southern
1 Asoka reigned about 257-220, B.c.
34
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
35
Buddhists. Asoka in many places, however, caused
what we may style the Buddhist1 creed to be in
scribed on rocks, and this agrees with what the Pali
books of the “Three Baskets” {Tipitakani) give us
as the summary of his teaching. There can be
no doubt, therefore, what this was, and little un
certainty is now felt that from the Pali books we can
ascertain with fair accuracy the main details of his
life and a tolerably correct idea of his character and
work. We are able, therefore, to learn what was
believed about him at least some few hundred years
after his birth, and to distinguish from this the multi
farious legends contained in much later books. It is
well to point out this in order to prevent an objec
tion that our distinction between the historical and
the legendary is arbitrary. There may be something
mythical even in what scholars, on the authority of
the oldest Buddhist Scriptures, now generally regard
as probably correct in the main; but there can be no
doubt that what can be proved on documentary
evidence to be later additions to the narrative are
legendary. Yet some of our modern mythologists
do not, as we shall see, scruple to invent and add to
them certain mythical details not found even in the
latest and most unreliable Buddhist fables. Modern
European scholars have written many admirable
works on Buddha’s life and teaching, and there is,
therefore, absolutely no excuse for any writer of the
present day who ventures to draw either on his
imagination for his statements, or upon such accounts
as those given many years ago by St. Hilaire, or
again by late Sanskrit, Tibetan, or Chinese books of
no authority.
1 This may be thus translated :—
“Whatever conditions are sprung from a cause,
The cause of them the Tathagato
Has told, and what is their end :
Thus spake the Great Monk.”
�36
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
We are not surprised that Mr. Blatchford should
inform us that the account of our Lord’s Virgin
birth was borrowed from Buddhism {God and My
Neighbour: see my criticism of his statements in
the Clarion for April 8th, 1904), and that Buddha
was a Solar myth. But it is somewhat strange to
find such a man as Mr. Vivian Phelips following so
innocently in his footsteps. Yet the latter tells us
that Buddha was miraculously conceived by his
mother Maya, that “he1 descended into hell, he
ascended into heaven ... he is to come upon the
earth in the latter days to restore the world to order
and happiness. He is to be judge of the dead. . . .
According to Buddha the motive of all our actions
should be pity, or love for our neighbour . . . Finally,
we should note that Buddha aimed to establish a
‘ Kingdom of Heaven ’ {Dharmachakra^h How any
one can venture to palm off the “Kingdom of
Heaven ” upon us as the translation of a word which
means “the wheel of the Law,” and connotes the
later Buddhist idea that Buddha claimed universal
dominion on earth, passes comprehension. But it
must be admitted that this last assertion is quite as
correct as the others we have quoted in the above
extracts.
As his authority for Buddha’s miraculous birth,
Mr. Phelips mentions1 Professor Rhys Davids’ state
2
ment that “ Csoma Korosi {Asiatic Researches, xx.
299) refers in a distant way to a belief of the later
Mongol Buddhists that Maya was a virgin : but this
has not been confirmed.” Professor Rhys Davids
1 The Churches of Modern Thought, pp. 124 sqq.
2 His other authorities, he tells us, are Beal’s Romantic History of
Buddha, Bunsen’s Angel Messiah, and a report mentioned by Jerome
{Contra Jovianum, Lib. I.). It is almost incredible that he should
accept such books as authorities for the existence of the dogma and
expect others also to do so.
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
37
himself, on the authority of Buddhist works, says
that Maya was “about the forty-fifth year of her
age ” when “ she promised her husband a son ”
(Buddhism, S.P.C.K., ist ed., p. 26). As she was
doubtless married, at latest, when about twelve years
old, and had then been living with her husband
Suddhodana for some thirty-three years, it is hardly
necessary to consider the question of Buddha’s
“ Virgin-birth ” any further. Her death occurred
seven days after her son was born. All this is neither
miraculous nor at all similar to the Gospel narrative.
In my Noble Eightfold Path, I have given an
Appendix containing the earliest Pali and Sanskrit
accounts of the birth of Buddha (pp. 202-6). It is
there shewn that the earliest Pali books of the
Buddhist Canon give absolutely no hint whatever
of Mayas virginity, and mention nothing miracu
lous in Buddha’s conception. In much later Pali
works as for instance in the introduction to the
Jatakas, we find a dream of Maya’s to the effect that
she was carried away to the Himalayas, and that
there a great white elephant entered her side. This
is related only as a dream, not as a reality, and wise
men are called together by her husband to explain
what such a singular dream means. They say that
the meaning is that her son will be either a great
king or an enlightened sage (a “ Buddha ”). But
even here there is no hint of virginity or of a super
natural birth. The first indication of any such idea
is found in a Sanskrit poem by Asvaghosha entitled
the Buddha-Carita (Bk. I., vv. 17, 18). Professor
Cowell thinks that this romance may possibly date
from the first century of the Christian era. The
Professor says, “ Whether he (Asvaghosha) could be
the contemporary and spiritual adviser of Kanishka
in the first century A.D. is not yet proved, though it
appears very probable; but at any rate his Buddha-
�38
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Carita seems to have been translated .into Chinese
early in the fifth century. This must imply that it
enjoyed a great reputation among the Buddhists of
India, and justifies our fixing the date of its com
position at least one or two centuries earlier” (Intro
duction to Buddha-Carita, p. v.). Hence we see that
something marvellous in Buddha’s conception was
believed by the Indian Buddhists perhaps as early
as three hundred years after our Lord’s time, possibly
even in the first century. But what was it which
this flowery poem states on the subject ? It boldly
accepts as a fact of actual occurrence what the
Introduction to the Jataka fables mentions only as a
dream, viz. that the future Buddha in the form of
an elephant entered his mother’s womb. Asvaghosha
seems to indicate his belief in Maya’s virginity also
by saying that Suddhodana, “ Having gained her,
often mastered desire, ever woman’s practice, and
darkness (or anger) then too [he mastered], not at
all by night having approached the brilliant moon
plant.”
If this is what he means, he very possibly got the idea
from Christian accounts of our Lord’s birth, for there
is no doubt that Christian preachers reached the
western coast of India even in Apostolic times. (See
Geo. Smith, The Conversion of India, pp. 8 and 9.)
The idea is certainly completely foreign to earlier
Buddhism, which saw nothing marvellous or super
natural in Buddha’s conception and birth. Asva
ghosha proceeds to relate many strange things about
Buddha, who, he tells us, after being born from
Maya’s left side, immediately walked and spoke,
proclaiming his own greatness. Later Buddhist
works are full of the most absurd tales about his
conduct then and afterwards. For instance, the
Mahavaggo informs us that, very shortly after his
“enlightenment” under the Bo-tree, Buddha visited
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
39
a community of one thousand Jatilas, or ascetics with
matted locks, near Uruvela. He obtained permission
to spend the night in the room where they kept their
sacred fire burning. There he found “ a savage
serpent-king of great magical power, a dreadfully
venomous serpent,” who, angered at his intrusion,
‘‘sent forth fire. And the Worshipful One (Buddha),
turning his own body into fire, sent forth flames.”
Having thus overcome the serpent, Buddha next
morning threw him into his alms-bowl and exhibited
him to the chief of the monks. One night Buddha
paid a visit to the Tavatimsa heaven to pluck a
flower. He created five hundred vessels with fire in
them for the Jatilas to warm themselves at on a
winter night when they had bathed. During an
inundation, Buddha made the water in one place
recede, and then he “walked about in the midst of
the water on a dust-covered spot.” In all he per
formed 3,500 miracles, and thereby converted all the
Jatilas (Mahavaggo, i., 15-20). We mention these as
a specimen of the more sober marvels attributed to
Buddha, in order that the contrast between his
miracles and those of our Lord may be clear to
everyone.
Some have tried to prove that the Lalita- Vistara,
a famous Sanskrit romance about Buddha’s early life,
was in existence shortly after the beginning of the
Christian era. These attempts have failed, though
we know that such books existed as early as the sixth
century after Christ. But, even were it proved that
they had existed in much earlier days, how is it
possible for any perverse ingenuity to persuade any
reasonable human being that the writers of the Gos
pels could in any way have drawn from such silly
tales the marvellous picture of Christ, “Who went
about doing good,” which we find in the New Testa
ment ? It is true that some of the absurdities in the
�"I.... '
40
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Apocryphal Gospels may have a Buddhistic origin, as
for instance the fable in the Arabic Gospel of the
Infancy that our Lord spoke when an infant in the
cradle, which story is reproduced in the Qur’an. But
the spirit which produced such compositions is dia
metrically opposed to that to which our New Testa
ment writings are due. This very fact proves that
the latter are not the product of the mythic tendency
as are the former. The contrast in tone and character
is too complete to permit of the hypothesis that the
true and the false have the same origin. John Stuart
Mill tells us that the Gospel accounts of Christ’s life
must be historical, for no poet or dramatist ever lived
who could have “imagined the life and character re
vealed in the Gospels.” Professor Harnack, another
great thinker, and one whose testimony cannot be
suspected of being influenced in favour of orthodox
Christianity, in his exhaustive study of early Christian
literature, says, “ There was a time . . . when people
fancied themselves obliged to consider the most
ancient Christian literature, inclusive of the New
Testament, a mass of deceits and falsifications.
That time has passed away. . . . The oldest liter
ature of the Church is in its main points, and in most
of its details, treated in a literary-historical way, truth
ful and reliable” {Die Chronologie der altchristlichen
Litteratur, Vol. I., pp. viii. and ix.). So that, were the
resemblances to be found in Buddhist myths ten times
as great as they really are, the conclusions of the
opponents of Christianity would still be devoid of any
real foundation.
But let us see what is really taught about Buddha
in the earliest and most reliable Buddhist works.
His youth was passed in Kapilavastu and its
neighbourhood. He resided with Suddhodana, his
father, during the winter, summer, and the rainy
season each year in one or another of the three country
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
4i
seats which a later tradition terms royal “ palaces.”
He married early in accordance with Indian custom.
Only one of his wives is mentioned by name, though
accounts differ as to what her name was. The
Buddhavamso represents him as stating that he had
40,000 wives (ch. xxvi, 15), and later accounts double
this number, but these may be regarded as grossly
exaggerated. The only son of his who is mentioned
is Rahulo, who was born when Buddha—or, as he was
.then called, Siddhartha—was twenty-nine years of
age. Buddha then deserted his wife and child and
.became an anchoret, retiring from all the world’s
[fickle joys in order to find peace of mind through
'self-torture. He became the disciple of one devotee
after another, and, dissatisfied with them, almost
killed himself by his asceticism. After seven years’
vain effort to obtain “the supreme, best state of
calm,” he saw the futility of this method, and began
to take food in strict moderation.
; One night he sat meditating near Uruvela under a
sacred tree, the pipaly since known as the “ Bo-tree.”
His abstraction became intense, and he finally
imagined that he had reached Omniscience (sambodhi)
and had discovered the cause and cure of all human
suffering. He then said of himself, “ I have over
come all foes ; I am all-wise; I am free from stains
in every way; I have left everything, and have
obtained emancipation through the destruction of
desire. Having myself gained Knowledge, whom
should I call my master ? I have no teacher : no one
is equal to me; in the world of men and of Gods no
being is like me. ... I am the highest teacher. I
alone am the absolute omniscient one (sambuddho) :
I have gained coolness” (by the extinction of all pas
sions), “ and have obtained Nirvana. To found the
kingdom of the law (dhammo) I go to the city of the
Kasis (Banaras) : I will beat the drum of immortality
�42
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
in the darkness of this world.” By “immortality”
(amata) he meant Nirvana. It is called deathlessness
because, as there is no existence in it, there can be
no dying. It differs therefore in toto from what we
mean by immortality.
Buddha was so far from claiming to be a Divine
Incarnation that he never in any way even acknow
ledged the existence of a Creator of the universe. He
spoke of the devas or gods of popular belief as needing
to accept his philosophy in order to escape from the
misery of existence.
As soon as he had evolved his philosophy, he
desired to teach it to others. Later accounts tell us
that “ Maro ” endeavoured to persuade and even to
frighten him into becoming annihilated (entering
Nirvana) at once, so as to prevent him from passing
on to others the secret of escape from the misery of
existence. Maro caused all kinds of terrible con
vulsions in Nature in order to alarm Buddha, but in
vain. “ A thousand appalling meteors fell; clouds
and darkness prevailed. Even this earth, with the
oceans and mountains it contains, though it is
unconscious, quaked like a conscious being—like a
fond bride when forcibly torn from her bridegroom—
like the festoons of a vine shaking under the blasts of
a whirlwind. The ocean rose under the vibration of
this earthquake; rivers flowed back towards their
sources; peaks of lofty mountains, where countless
trees had grown for ages, rolled crumbling to the earth;
a fierce storm howled all around; the roar of the con
cussion became terrific ; the very sun enveloped itself
in awful darkness, and a host of headless spirits filled
the air” (Prof. Rhys Davids’ Buddhism, S.P.C.K.,
PP- 36, 37). Some people have compared this fancy
sketch with the Gospel account of the Temptation of
our Lord. Suffice it to say that Maro is not Satan,
as the latter has no place in Buddhism, that the object
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
43
of the trial was quite different in the two cases,
and that the details bear no resemblance to one
another.
Buddha’s whole system of philosophy differed
widely from the doctrines of Christianity. “ His
object was to get rid of an existence without God and
without hope,” which he felt to be all the more
terrible because he held that the death of the body
does not end the consequences of one’s conduct here.
He believed that life was devoid of all purpose. All
its happiness seemed to him worse than illusory, but
“ all that causes suffering—birth, sickness, death,
separation from what is dear to us, and union with
what is hateful ”—remained. “ And this stream of
misery and tears extends backwards to all eternity . . .
and stretches forward to all the eternities. This iswhat
is implied in the ceaseless passing of all beings . . .
into life, until they die, and again from death, by
means of repeated births, into a new existence full
of suffering” (Prof. Grau, The Goal of the Human
Race, pp. 145-7).
He spent the rest of his life after attaining Buddhahood in travelling about the country, teaching his
gloomy philosophy. Many disciples, thousands of
them, joined him, principally from the titled and
wealthy to whom he almost exclusively addressed
himself. At length, at the age of eighty years, he
died through some error of diet, and then, in the
opinion of himself and his followers, became extinct.
His last words addressed to the monks who formed
his Sangho or Community were these: “ Come now,
mendicants, I bid you farewell. Compounds are
subject to dissolution. Succeed through diligence”
(Mahaparinibbana-Suttam, p. 61J
He taught the doctrine of transmigration of char
acter and the results of conduct {Karma), and also
the non-existence of the human soul, According
�44
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
to him, the motive for all conduct should be the
attainment of Nirvana, and thus of release from all
“ passions,” good or bad, and ultimate extinction.
The idea that “he is to be judge of the dead,” that
“he descended into hell, he ascended into heaven,
he is to come upon the earth in the latter days to
restore the world to order and happiness,” is abso
lutely contrary to Buddhism, and is due either to
an unaccountable mistake or to the romantic imagi
nation of a modern English mythologist. Buddhists,
who believe that before their teacher’s birth there
were many other Buddhas, look for the coming of
still more, and especially for one who is to be called
Metteyo. But they are bound to believe that the
historical Siddhartha or Gotamo Buddha is extinct,
and certainly, therefore, cannot expect his return to
earth.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS,
AND OSIRIS
A LL classical scholars are aware of the existence
of an ancient myth, which, in slightly different
forms, once prevailed throughout Western Asia,
Egypt, Italy and Greece, and which in general set
forth in parabolical language the death of vegetation
in winter and its coming to life again in spring. In
the Hellenic world and in Italy people told how the
Ruler of Hades, or Orcus, carried off to the realms
below Persephone or Proserpina, the fair daughter
of the Earth- or Corn-goddess, Demeter or Ceres,
fend how she was allowed periodically to return to
the surface again and spend some time with her
mother, ere going back once more to the domain of
the dead. In Egypt we have the myth of Osiris, in
Mesopotamia and Syria that of Adonis, in Phrygia
that of Attis (also called Atys or Attin). A slightly
varied Phrygian fable styles the demigod Agdistis.
It has occurred to the fertile imaginations of certain
modern writers that perhaps they could successfully
practise upon the credulity and ignorance of “the
man in the street,” and so induce him to believe that
the doctrine of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ was but another form of this ancient Nature
legend. Of course, all who have studied the evidence
for our Lord’s Resurrection know that this evidence
is quite unanswerable. Strauss, Renan and countless
other opponents, in modern as well as in early
Christian times, have endeavoured to explain away
45
�46
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the recorded facts of the case, and always in vain.
It has not been necessary for Christians to answer
these attacks, for one assailant has overthrown
another and shewn how hopeless his theory was.
Professor Orr’s recent book on the subject {The
Resurrection of Jesus') carefully weighs each hostile
theory and concisely gives the evidence which
opponents have, during eighteen hundred years,
entirely failed to shake, or even to account for
unless by confessing it to be true. It is not our
intention to deal with the proof of the doctrine of
Christ’s Resurrection at present, but rather to examine
the narratives relating to Adonis, Attis, and Osiris,
in order to see whether these various forms of the
Nature-myth really bear such a striking resemblance
to the Gospel history as has been loudly asserted of
late.
The name “Adonis” is really due to an error of
the Greeks. Hearing the Oriental women “weeping
for Tammuz” and lamenting aloud, as at the inter
ment of a king, “Adon!” (“My lord”: cf. the
Hebrew of Jer. xxii. 18, and xxxiv. 5, also Ezek.
viii. 14), they fancied that this, instead of being a
title, was the name of the deceased. But his real
name was Tammuz in Hebrew and Syriac, and was
derived from the Accadian Dumu-zi, “ Son of Life,”
probably a contraction for Dumu-zi-apsu, “ Son of the
Life (Spirit) of the Deep” (Sayce). Tammuz was
regarded as the offspring of Ea, the god of the
ocean. Another of his sons was Asari, whose wor
ship was carried to Egypt by its early Semitic
conquerors. This latter deity became known in
Greek as Osiris. Both Tammuz and he were origin
ally Sungods, though afterwards in some measure
identified with the fruits of the earth. It is not at
all strange, therefore, to find that at a later time in
Phoenicia, Osiris and Tammuz were in a measure
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 47
confounded with one another, and their myths in
some degree held to be but varied forms of one and
the same legend or allegory.
The Greek form of the tale of Adonis is well
known, and it has been frequently the theme of
poetry in many tongues. He was the lover of the
goddess Aphrodite, he was slain by the tusk of a wild
boar, and the goddess lamented him yearly, and
caused a flower to spring from his blood (cf. Ovid,
“ Metamorphoses,” Lib. x., 503-fin.). Another form
of the story informs us that Adonis was son of an
Assyrian king Theias and his own daughter Smyrna,
and that, when the child was born, Aphrodite handed
him over to Persephone to be reared. When Aphro
dite thought that the time had come for him . to
return to her, Persephone refused to restore him.
Zeus was then appealed to, and asked to decide with
whom Adonis should dwell. He decreed that a third
part of each year should be spent with each of the
rival goddesses in turn, the remaining third being at
Adonis’ own disposal. Adonis, however, devoted this
period also to Aphrodite. He was afterwards killed
by a boar while hunting, as has already been men
tioned (Apollodorus, Lib. iii., cap. 14, §.3-4). This
writer tells us nothing whatever of Adonis’ return to
life, though it may perhaps be inferred that something
of the kind was implied by the alternate visits to
Aphrodite and to the Queen of Hades. But, if so,
these occurred rather before than after his death. In the
previous version of the myth, the nearest approach to
a return to life is the growth of a flower from his blood.
If we may judge from the classical forms of the
legend, lamentation for the death of Adonis long
preceded the establishment of any festival in honour
of his return to the bosom of Aphrodite. But in
much later times in Rome and elsewhere the festival
of the “ Adonia” was celebrated in June, at the time
�MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of the summer solstice, with alternate wailings and
rejoicings. According to Macrobius {Saturn. i., 21,
vide Sayce, Religions of Egypt and Assyria, and
Hibbert Lectures, p. 231), the Syrians explained the
boar’s tusk, with which Adonis was slain, as denoting
the cold and gloom of winter, and said that his return
to earth implied his “ victory over the first six zodia
cal signs, along with the lengthening daylight.” The
reference to the signs of the zodiac shews that Adonis
was still known to have originally been the Sungod,
though then identified with the fertility of the soil,
which was regarded as largely due to his generative
influence. Professor Sayce holds that the Syrian
custom of rejoicing immediately after the “ wailing
for Tammuz” was introduced from Egypt, where the
idea of Osiris’ continued life after death had long
been entertained. Lucian’s account of the Syrian
festival supports this supposition {De Syria Dea,
cap. vii.). From very ancient times, as we learn
from the Assyrian poem of the “ Descent of Ishtar
to Hades,” it was believed in Accad that Ishtar, or
Ashtoreth, who in Greece was styled Aphrodite, had
gone down to the lower world “ in search of the healing
waters which should restore to life her bridegroom,
Tammuz.” Apparently she succeeded, but the poem
says absolutely nothing of any return to life on the
part of the dead god. (See the original text in Rawlin
son’s Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. iv., plate 31.)
The “ wailing for Tammuz” took place in different
countries at different seasons of the year. Accad
and Babylonia generally recognised the fierce summer
heat as his deadly foe, Phoenicia the cold of
winter. “If there was another feast in which grief
gave place to joy at his restoration to life, it was
separate from that which celebrated his death, and
must have taken place at a different time of the
year.” In the West, on the other hand, “ he ceased to
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 49
be the Sungod of spring and became the Sungod of
summer. Winter, and not summer, was the enemy
who had slain the god” (Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, pp.
231, 232). Hence, when Julian the Apostate entered
Antioch in triumph in October, A.D. 362, the wailing
.Over Adonis’ death which he then found going on must
have seemed to him full of ill omen (Am. Marcellinus,
Lib., xxii., 9., 15).
The fact that this lamentation for Tammuz was
observed at different seasons of the year in different
countries, in accordance with the known variety of their
(climate, agrees with all other facts of the case, and
proves that his worshippers did not fall into the
error of imagining that they were weeping for a
human “ Saviour ” or Deliverer who had been slain.
They by no means regarded Tammuz as a Saviour,
but well understood that their religious rites had
reference to an annual occurrence in Nature. That
this was recognised is clear from the explanations of
it which Roman and Greek authors give on their
authority, and also from the loathsomely licentious
practices then observed in honour of the god. “It
is possible, though not yet proved, that in Tammuz
two deities have been combined together, the Sungod
and the vegetation of the spring which the young Sun
of the year brings into existence ” (Sayce, Religions
of Egypt and Babylonia, p. 350). The same process
of combination or of reflection was pursued in the
case of Osiris also, as we shall see presently. Ulti
mately, as Marcellinus shews (Lib. xix., 1., 11, and
Lib. xxii., 9., 15), it was held that the reaping of the
corn and the dying down of vegetation at the onset
of winter was what was really denoted by Tammuz’
death. Thus the god became identified not so much
with vegetation itself as with the productive- or
generative power in Nature which caused the crops
to grow out of the bosom of the earth. As the
�5o
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
character of Tammuz, her “lover,” underwent this
change, so Ishtar herself came to express a con
ception altogether different from that which she at
first represented. She was originally “ the spirit of
the evening star ” (Sayce, op. cit., p. 340), as we learn
from her name, which, in its primary Accadian
form Gis-dar, meant “bright lady.” (It occurs so
written in the Preface to Hammurabi’s Laws, column
iii., line 54, in Harper’s edition of the original text.)
But when Adonis became the vivifying power which
produces vegetation, Ishtar was regarded as the
Earth fertilised thereby, very much as was the case
with Isis in Egypt.
It is impossible for us to describe the abominably
immoral practices which resulted from this conception,
and which were everywhere inseparably connected
with the worship of Adonis and Aphrodite, otherwise
styled Tammuz and Ishtar. Not only at Babylon in
the temple of the goddess whom Herodotus (Lib. i.,
199) terms Mylitta, but also wherever the productive
powers of Nature were deified—in Phrygia, in Cyprus,
throughout heathen Palestine, in Syria, in India,
and in many other lands—these abominations were
for ages continued as religious rites. They were
supposed to give pleasure to the deities in whose
honour they were practised, to promote the fertility
of the soil, and to acquire merit for the unspeakably
degraded beings who practised them.
Lucian, or the author of the book On the Syrian
Goddess generally ascribed to him, after giving us an
account of the shameful rite performed at Byblos
(Gebal) in honour of Aphrodite each year, tells us that,
the very day after that on which the lamentation for
Adonis’ death took place, an announcement was
made that he was alive fDe Syria Dea, cap. 6).
This is one of the comparatively few instances in
which any distinct mention is found of the belief
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 51
that he did return to life, except, indeed, in the pages
of Christian writers of antiquity. The latter not
unfrequently apply distinctively Christian phrase
ology to heathen ideas, by the use, for example, of
such words as “resurrection.” Dr. Frazer, perhaps
unconsciously, somewhat colours the picture he
draws, partly because the English language itself
has become permeated with Christian conceptions.
Mr: Robertson continues the process in a man
ner which candour and the desire to represent
the actual facts hardly warrant. Then Mr: Vivian
Phelips takes things in hand, and unfortunately
allows his imagination to carry him entirely
away.
To give an instance of this with reference to
the myth of Adonis, let us take what Lucian and
Theocritus tell us about the latter deity’s return to
life. The author of the little book On the Syrian
Goddess, already quoted, says regarding Adonis:
“Afterwards, on the next day, they say mythically
that he is alive, and send him into the air ” (cap. vi.).
Dr. Frazer paraphrases this by saying, “Adonis was
supposed to come to life next day, and ascend to
heaven. This probably occurred in spring, about
Easter? (The italics are ours.) Again he tells us,
on Theocritus’ authority, that at Alexandria “ the
women wailing for Adonis sang that he would
return” (.ZiftwA, Attis, Osiris, pp. 182-6). What,
according to Theocritus, they really said was, “ Fare
well now, dear Adonis, and mayest thou be of good
cheer till next year. And now thou art gone,
Adonis, and as a friend shalt thou come when thou
arrivest” (Theoc., xv., 143-4).
Mr. Vivian Phelips on such authority founds his amazing statement that, “ Of all old-world legends,
the death and resurrection of a . . . divinely-born
Saviour was the most widespread” {The Churches
�52
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
and Modern Thought, p. 59). This assertion is hardly
justified by the facts of the case, at least as far as
the myth of Adonis is concerned. Whether it is in
harmony with what we learn from other somewhat
similar stories we shall be able to judge when we
have carried a little further this present chapter.
We now turn to the study of the Phrygian legend
of Attis. Some of the details of this story are well
known to us from classical sources, on which, in the
absence of genuine Phrygian accounts, we have to
depend ; others are unfit for repetition in a modern
language. Attis was, the tale relates, though in
other words, son1 of a savage monster called
Agdistis and a princess Nana. Agdistis was the
offspring of Jupiter and a huge rock. Dr. Frazer
points out that in reality Agdistis is “ a double of
Attis’' (Adonis, Attis, Osiris, p. 224). We dare not
sully our pages by narrating the details given regard
ing Agdistis’ conception, but it is emphatically not
a Virgin-birth. As Agdistis and Attis are practi
cally one and the same being, what is true of
Agdistis’ birth applies equally to that of Attis. The
people who told these tales certainly did not mean
to imply that they believed in the Virgin-birth of
either of these deities. Dr. Frazer is probably right
1 Arnobius (Adv. Gentes, Lib. v.) narrat Agdistem per Bacchi
dolum sese partibus privasse genitalibus. “Cum discidio partium
sanguis fluit immensus. Rapiuntur et combibuntur haec terra.
Malum repente cum pomis ex his punicum nascitur, cuius Nana
speciem contemplata, regis Sangarii vel fluminis Alia, carpit mirans
atque in sinu reponit. Fit ex eo praegnans.” Dr. Frazer, though he
refers to this story, says, “ His mother Nana was a virgin, who con
ceived by putting a ripe almond or a pomegranate into her bosom ”
{Adonis, Attis, Osiris, p. 219). It is pretty clear, to those who know
anything of the East, what the figurative meaning of the almond or
pomegranate really is; and the particulars which Arnobius gives of
the origin of the latter makes the meaning still plainer. Hence it is
hardly quite correct to say that here we have what is intended to be
an instance of belief in a Virgin-birth, in the true sense of the term.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 53
in holding that the name which in Greek assumed
the form “Attis’' is the word which in all TurkoTartar languages, including Accadian and Hungarian,
means “ Father,” while Nana in languages of the
same stock denotes “ Mother.” The “ rock ” probably
signifies a cloud or the sky, as in the case of Mithra
(see p. 19 above). Thus in its original form the myth
was a Nature-legend, entirely free from the unsavoury
features into which later mythologists distorted the
primitive account of the fertilising of the earth by
the heaven-sent rain.
Attis is distinctly at once a Sungod and god of
fertility. The story of his association with the
“ Great Mother,” Cybele, and of his self-mutilation,
is differently told by different writers, but the general
meaning is the same.
According to Arnobius, Agdistis entreated Zeus to
restore Attis to life. He refused to do so; yet he
granted that the body should remain undecayed,
that his hair should keep growing, and “ his smallest
finger always moving.” We find that the Sungod is
somehow identified at once with the generative
power of Nature and with the corn which is sown
in the earth and springs forth from it. The growth
of Attis’ hair after his death recalls the story, alike
Chinese and old Norse, which relates how the flesh
of Pw'an-Ku or Ymir became the soil (as did that
of Tiamat in Babylonian mythology), and his hairs
the plants of the earth. But, instead of a literal
“ resurrection ” of Attis, we are told that permission
to rise again was refused, and that his resuscitation
did not take place. If other accounts import into the
story the idea that Attis returned to life, it is clear
that the meaning is the same as in the case of
Adonis. To speak of the “resurrection” of Attis,
therefore, as being celebrated on the 25 th March,
during the observance of the Hilaria festival at Rome
�54
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
in honour of Cybele, hardly seems quite in accordance
with the real belief of Attis’ devotees. Livy speaks
of Cybele’s festival as occurring “ on the day before
the Ides of April,” i.e. on the 12th April. The general
character of the worship offered to Attis, and the
way in which the most devout of his adorers, the Galli,
mutilated themselves in imitation of their deity, is
well known. The main features of the myth of Attis
bear such a close resemblance to those of the Adonis
legend that we need not further dwell upon them.
It remains for us to enquire into the Egyptian story
of Osiris.
The Book ofthe Dead,as European writers, following
Lepsius, generally style the volume so often interred
by the ancient Egyptians in the tombs along with
the bodies of their deceased friends and relatives,
confirms the account long known to us from the
Greek writer Plutarch (De Iride et Osiride, capp.
13-21). It assumes as a well-known fact that Osiris
“ suffered death and mutilation at the hands of his
enemies ; that the various members of his body were
scattered about the land of Egypt; that his sister
wife Isis sought him sorrowing and at length found
him ; that she raised up his body and was united unto
him; that she conceived and brought forth a child
(Horus); and that Osiris became the god and king
of the Underworld ” (Budge, Book of the Dead, Introd,
to Translation, p. lxxx.).
It was believed that
when the pieces of his body (except one, which a fish
had swallowed) were collected and put together they
were made into a mummy, and thus preserved in the
tomb from decay (vide the Egyptian text, cap. cliv.,
line 16, Budge’s Ed.).
In this book it is clear that Osiris is identified with
the setting sun, as in the Hymn to Osiris, in Chap
ter XV., for instance. That passage thus addresses
him, “ Thou turnest thy face to Amentet ” (the
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
55
Underworld); “thou makest both lands to shine
with refined copper. The dead stand beholding thee,
they draw breath, they behold thy face as the rising
of the solar disc from its horizon ; their hearts rest
in beholding thee : thou art everlastingness, eternity.”
At the beginning of this Hymn he is styled, Un nefei\ “ the Good Being,” and the “ Lord of Eternity,”
and his worshippers must, therefore, originally have
conceived of him as a god possessed of very lofty
attributes, though in later times this idea became very
much debased, as in similar cases in all other Ethnic
faiths. At On (Heliopolis), Osiris was adored as
“ the Soul of Ra,” the Sungod (Pinches, Old Test, in
the Light of, etc, p. 264).
It is customary among modern writers to speak of
Osiris’ “ Resurrection.” This is a mistake which may
produce serious consequences. What we learn from
the Book of the Dead is that his body was carefully
put together and buried, and that he became god of
the Underworld, where be bestows eternal existence
upon those who become in a mystical manner identi
fied with him. It is because his body was held to be
dead, buried, and to remain lifeless, that the title of
god of the “ still heart ” was bestowed on Osiris, since
stillness of the heart implies death. In this respect
he was held to be in the same condition as mummi
fied men, being alive only in spirit, not in body.
This is clear from almost every reference to him in
Egyptian theology. Accordingly in one passage
Thoth is represented as addressing him thus : “ Thy
son Horus avengeth thee, ... he bindeth together
for thee thy flesh, he gathereth together for thee thy
limbs, he collecteth for thee thy bones. . . . Thou art
lifted up, then, Osiris; I have given thee thy hand :
I cause thee to remain alive for ever. . . . The great
company of the gods protecteth thee, . . . they
journey beside thee to the door of the gate of the
�56
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Underworld {Tuat}” {Book of the Dead, Egyptian
text, p. 47, lines 4-6). He is spoken of as “giving
birth to mortals a second time,” as well as himself
“coming to youth” again {op. cit., p. 482). Dr.
Budge explains the former expression as referring to
“the birth into the life which is beyond the grave”
(Introd., p. Ixxxv.). It certainly does not imply a
belief in the Christian doctrine of the New Birth, or
in a resurrection of the body of Osiris himself, or of
his devotees. “The educated Egyptian,” says Dr.
Budge, “ never believed that the material body would
rise again and take up new life. . . . They mummi
fied their dead, simply because they believed that
spiritual bodies would ‘ germinate ’ in them. . . . The
dead body of Osiris himself rested upon earth in
Heliopolis” (Introd., p. lxxxvi.). On this point the
language of the Book of the Dead is clear : “Ta x^t
nutert aat enti heteptu em Annu,” that is to say,
“The divine great body, which is laid at rest in
Heliopolis ” (Eg. text, cap. 162, line 7: cf. Plutarch,
op. cit., cap. 20, fink).
We are not told anything of the nature of the
spiritual body with which Osiris entered the Lower
World. But “that he dwelt in the material body
which was his upon earth, there is no reason what
ever to suppose” (Budge, ut suprci). His dismem
bered body was collected and preserved from decay,
for the same reason as that which led to the preserva
tion of the bodies of those Egyptians who could
afford to be properly embalmed. The Egyptian
authorities on the subject shew us that it would be
just as correct to say that the mummies in our
museums had “ risen from the dead,” as to speak of
the “ Resurrection ” of Osiris. He was believed to
be alive, and to reign in the Underworld, just as their
spirits were recognised as living, in spite of the fact
that their mummified bodies remained dead. In the
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
57
Christian sense of the word, Osiris’ followers did not
at all believe that he had “risen from the dead,”
though they thought that in the Underworld he could
render very real assistance to the spirits of those who
had served him on earth. In this respect Osiris in
Egypt was supposed to perform the same office as
was undertaken in Babylonian mythology by Merodach (Marduk). On Cyrus’ “Barrel Cylinder,” for
example, Merodach is referred to as “ The lord who
by his might quickeneth the dead” (“Belu sa ina
tukulti-sa [?-su] uballitu mitutan ”: Rawlinson, Cun.
Inscr. of Western Asia, vol. v., plate 35, line 19), that
is to say, gives life to their spirits by introducing
them into the realm of the departed, and there
watching over them. It is of great importance that
the true significance of such phrases should be rightly
understood. The context enables us to ascertain
what the real meaning of such language is, and how
it was understood by the worshippers of Osiris in
the one country and of Merodach in the other.
We must now consider the meaning of the myth
of Osiris. In name, and originally in the idea which
he represented, Osiris (in Egyptian Asar) is identical
with the Sumerian god Asari. The latter was, like
Osiris, god of the setting sun (Sayce, Religions, etc.,
p. 164), and was by the Semitic conquerors of the
country identified with Merodach. The spirit of the
pious Egyptian, when “ justified ” and identified with
Osiris, prays that it may come forth with Ra, the
Sungod, into the sky, and with him sail over the
world in the Atetet boat of the sun {Papyrus of Ani,
sheet 20, Hymn to Ra, line 5). Hence it is clear
that the death of Osiris meant the setting of the Sun :
and the red glow of sunset shed over the land was
possibly what the myth allegorically expressed by
speaking of the parts of his body being scattered over
the whole country after his murder by his brother
�58
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Typhon or Set. Or in Egypt there may have pre
vailed at one time, as was undoubtedly the case in
very many other countries, the barbarous custom of
killing a man and sprinkling his blood and scattering
far and wide over the fields the torn fragments of his
body in order to secure their fertility (Adonis, Attis,
Osiris, pp. 330-1). If so, the red and scattered rays
of the setting sun may have been at first allegori
cally compared to a death and mutilation of this
kind, and this may have been afterwards taken for
a literal reality. This, of course, is only a supposi
tion, and cannot be proved. But, if taken only as
a hypothesis, it gives a possible explanation of the
strange and ghastly story. In some way or other it
is certain that, though Osiris was at first the setting
Sun, who was entreated to enlighten with his rays
those whose spirits after death travelled with him
to his resting-place in the distant West, and to secure
them new life in the dark Underworld, yet he ulti
mately became identified with the fertility of the
ground and the growth of corn (Frazer, op. cit., p. 323 ;
Plutarch, op. cit.,. capp. 32, 33, 36, 38, 51, 65). Sayce
shews that it is incorrect to take Osiris as originally
denoting the sown corn, though later the identifica
tion did take place (Rel. of Ancient Eg. and Bab.,
p. 167). He was also associated with the Nile, if not
actually identified therewith, because the Nile gives
fertility and as it were life itself to the land by its
annual overflow. But Mr. Grant Allen is quite in
error in fancying that Osiris was an Egyptian chief
or king, deified after death. In this he is uncon
sciously following in the footsteps of Euhemeros,
and saying of Osiris what was asserted of Zeus
in Crete. Euhemerism (or “ Humanism ”) is quite
untenable as a theory employed to explain such
myths as those we are now dealing with. Osiris
was not a “ suffering Saviour ” in the sense of having
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
59
ever been a man, or having in any way died for men.
Such a theory has no support among Egyptologists.
The sowing of the seed corn was compared with
the burial of the dead and with the setting of
the sun ; and so it was not unnatural that the
Egyptians should consider the sunrise and the
springing up of the grain as typical of the life of
the spirit after its separation from the body. At
least as early as the Eighteenth Dynasty, Osiris was
supposed to be closely connected with the corn as it
emerged into new life, though we have seen that this
was not the original idea represented by the god.
But here we must guard against a misunderstanding
into which Dr. Frazer has somehow been led. He
says, “ Thus from the sprouting of the grain the
ancient Eyptians drew an augury of human immor
tality. They are not the only people who have built
the same far-reaching hopes on the same slender
foundation.” He then proceeds to quote St. Paul’s
words in 1 Corinthians xv.,36-38,42-44 (op. cit.,p. 345).
It is clear that he would have us understand that
the Apostle founds the Christian hope of immortality
upon the fact that the grain, when properly sown,
springs up fresh and vigorous. If this were so, the
foundation would be slender indeed. But had the
learned author whom we have quoted taken the
trouble to read St. Paul’s argument carefully before
criticising it, he would have seen that the Apostle
does not teach anything whatever of the kind. On
the contrary, he teaches that our hope of rising
again from the dead is based (not on the sprouting of
corn but) on the historical fact of the Resurrection of
the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. xv., 1-24). This fact
he knew for a certainty, and so did the Corinthian
Christians. Even a casual reader may see that St.
Paul uses the growth of the corn only as an illustra
tion. Professor Sayce well points out that in Egypt,
�6o
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
too, no one fancied that the immortality of the soul
wasproved\yy the fact that the buried seed afterwards
sprang up into new life. Among the worshippers of
Osiris as among Christians the illustration drawn
from the corn was “ the result of the doctrine of the
Resurrection, not the origin of it. It is not till men
believe that the human body can rise again from the
sleep of corruption that the growth of the seed which
has been buried in the ground is invoked to explain
and confirm their creed ” (Rel. of Eg. and Bab.,
p. 167). Probably the Egyptians did not believe in
the actual resurrection of the body, but from the
most ancient times they, in common with all other
nations, held firmly the conviction that the death of
the human body did not end all, but that the spirit
lived on in another sphere. This is not the place to
discuss the origin and grounds of such a belief, but
it clearly did not rest on such a slender foundation
as Dr. Frazer fancies. Nor does the Christian.
It is not quite clear how and why Osiris finally
came to appear to the Egyptians to have more
in common with humanity than the other gods.
Probably this was due to his dying and yet in
a sense remaining alive, as the sun manifestly seemed
to do, in which fact he resembled men, whom death
could not and did not completely destroy. All the
Egyptian gods and goddesses were thought to possess
material bodies, upon which old age at least had
a very considerable influence for the worse. Hence
it was not difficult to conceive of one of them being
murdered, as the myth related in reference to Osiris.
They believed that this had taken place at the time
when the gods reigned on earth. Osiris was in this
sense, and only in this sense, regarded as having
been an Egyptian sovereign, who had been treacher
ously slain, and whose tomb could still be pointed
out at Heliopolis, just as could that of Zeus jin Crete.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
61
(For an answer to Mr. Grant Allen’s deductions from
this latter statement of Euhemeros, see my Compara
tive ReligionA)
In consequence of his having died and yet remain
ing spiritually alive, Osiris seemed to his worshippers
to be a real deliverer, at least in the sense that they
thought that he felt for dying men more perhaps
than any other god, and could therefore be entreated
to take pity on their souls and protect them from the
piultitudinous dangers that beset the soul on its long
journey to the Sekhetu Aalu or Elysian Fields. But,
as we have seen, they did not for one moment
imagine that his body had ever come to life again.
The doctrine of the “ Resurrection of Osiris ” must
therefore be regarded as due to the reading of
Christian teaching and belief into heathen expressions
of quite a different meaning. This being the case,
it is manifestly impossible to agree with our modern
Mythologists in seeking to deduce the doctrine of
the Resurrection of our Lord from the Osiris-myth.
inasmuch as the latter contained no such doctrine.
But from the pathetic way in which the Egyptians
turned to Osiris in their grief, in the presence of
death and the unknown future, we may learn how
deep and heartfelt was man’s need of a Saviour from
death and from sin.
Although it thus contained some measure of truth,
the Osiris-myth led in practice to the same degrada
tion of morals which we find encouraged by other
Nature-myths. Dr. Frazer reminds us that, at the
time when the Dendera inscription was composed,
Osiris had come to be regarded “ as a personification
of the corn which springs from the fields after they
have been fertilised by the inundation. This, accord
ing to the inscription, was the kernel of the mysteries”
1 Longmans & Co., i/-.
�62
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
(pf. cit., p. 323). As Osiris therefore, especially when
regarded (as Professor Maspero shews he was from
very ancient times) as the fertilising power of the
Nile which produced the corn, conveyed to the
mind of his worshippers the idea of generative
might, it is not strange that this conception led to
evil. Both Herodotus (ii., 48, etc.) and Plutarch
{De Iside et Osiride, capp. 18, 36, 51) tell us how
closely his worship at last became associated with
phallic rites and indecent orgies. Upon this matter
we cannot dwell, for obvious reasons. But the fact,
which is undisputed, shews us that, in spite of the
“ Negative Confession ” in the Book of the Dead (cap.
cxxv.), Osirianism cannot be correctly regarded as
inculcating moral purity. In this respect it resembled
all other religions which are in any way associated
with Nature-worship. This is the reason why almost
all clearly and fully developed forms of Ethnic
religion among civilised nations have produced such
vile enormities. The central points of religious
thought among the mass of men in heathen lands
have always been the mysteries of birth, marriage and
death, as Albrecht Dieterich has well pointed out.
Each man is deeply concerned to answer the questions,
“ Whence do I come, and whither do I go? ” These
mysteries are closely associated with his deepest
passions, and in them and their results, full of marvels
as they are, he seems to himself most clearly to
recognise the workings of the Incomprehensible, the
Divine. “ Being begotten and dying are the mystery
of man’s beginning and of his end : the procreative
power and impulse constitute the marvel of his
person and life, horror of death is the only dread
which even the strong man cannot wholly banish, the
enigmatic, the most awful thing which ‘ deadly5 foes
can do to the living. . . . Among many peoples . . .
the Earth is considered the Mother of Mankind, from
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
63
which the children of men issue forth to earthly
birth. . . . The belief is widespread also that the soul
of the dying man returns to the earth ” (A. Dieterich,
Mutter Erde}. Man sees procreation and birth in
the sowing of seed in the earth and in the consequent
growth of plants. In most countries this thought
was developed in such a way that the Sky was con
sidered to be the husband and the Earth the wife ;
hence in Greek mythology the gods themselves
sprang from Ouranos and Gaia—Heaven and Earth
(Hesiod, “ Theogonia,” v. 45), just as they did in Poly
nesia from Rangi and Papa. But in Egypt the
process was reversed, probably because the fertilising
and procreative rain does not there, as elsewhere,
fall from the sky, but the moisture rises instead from
the cornfields flooded by the Nile. So the sky (Nut}
in Egypt was the Mother, Earth (Seb} the Father.
The procreative idea, however, was the same, and,
associated with Osiris as the giver of new life and as
at once brother and husband of Isis, it produced its
usual effects in the degradation alike of religion and of
morals. The thought of Osiris and Isis as brother
and sister may have at first been innocent, but, like
the similar tale of incest between Zeus and Hera in
Hellenic mythology, it soon tended to lower the
moral tone, all the more so when it came to be
forgotten what these deities had primarily represented.
From the legend of Osiris we may, no doubt,
learn how firmly men clung, in Egypt as well as
elsewhere, to their primaeval belief in an after-life,
and how they yearned for a Deliverer from the
terrors of death and the grave. They felt the need
for a God who, by his own experience knowing
something of human suffering and death, could feel
sympathy for men, and would associate them with
himself in the world of spirits in the life beyond the
tomb. “In the fulness of time” the true God was to
�64
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
grant them the fulfilment of all their hopes, the
realisation of the deepest longings of their hearts.
Christ, “the Man Christ Jesus,” came to carry our
sorrows as well as to bear our sins, to die a literal
death of agony, and by rising from the dead evince
“by many infallible proofs ” the truth of His claims,
the certainty of our triumph over death in Him, and
the fact that God had been leading men to the light
and not deceiving them as by a will-o’-the-wisp to
their ruin through the instinctive belief He had
given them in a life to come.
Our examination of the myths of Adonis, Attis,
and Osiris leads to the conclusion that under these
names “the peoples of Egypt and Western Asia
represented the yearly decay and renewal of life,
especially of vegetable life, which they personified
as a god who annually died and” (in some sense)
“rose again from the dead” (Frazer, Adonis, Attis,
Osiris, p. 5). “ Through the veil which mythic fancy
has woven around this tragic figure, we can still
detect the features of those great yearly changes in
earth and sky which, under all distinctions of race
and religion, must always touch the natural human
heart with alternate emotions of gladness and
regret” {Golden Bough, second edition; Vol. III.,
p. 196).
It is clear, therefore, that we are not here dealing
with “ stories of suffering Saviours, similar in all
essentials to the Gospel narratives,” as has been so
positively asserted of late (cf. Mr. Vivian Phelips,
The Churches and Modern Thought, p. 161). On the
contrary, the worshippers of Adonis, Attis, and
Osiris, as well as those of Ceres or Demeter and
similar Nature-Powers, were offering adoration to
what they believed to be the generative power of
Nature, manifesting itself in the birth of men,
animals, and plants alike. The very indecency of
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
65
their phallic rites shews this. In no respect can
any of these deities be called a “ Saviour ” in the
Christian sense, implying as it does an atoning death
Undergone for man’s salvation from sin1 by One
who was perfect Man as well as perfect God, the
Head of the human race and its representative.
Osiris, Attis, and Adonis were gods, not men, though
the pathos attached to the metaphor which spoke of
their “ deaths ” appealed (as we have seen) to someping _ in man’s heart which testified to his dumb
consciousness of his need of a God who could suffer,
and could therefore sympathise with man in suffer
ing and death. We who believe in a Divine Purpose
forking through all things, and who know the love
of God as revealed to us in our Lord Jesus Christ,
can readily understand that He wished to lead men,
even by such dim thoughts as these, to know some
thing of their need of a Saviour, so that when He
came they might receive Him. The other theory,
that there is nothing in the Christian doctrine of our
Lord’s atoning death and of His resurrection which
was not believed ages before by the Gentiles through
put a very large part of the ancient world, and that
this widely accepted myth is the source of these
essential parts of the Christian faith, will hardly
|tand the test of a candid enquiry. It is absolutely
unhistorical, in the first place, as our examination of
the chief Ethnic legends on the subject proves. We
See that any supposed resemblance to the Christian
view is due almost entirely to the unscientific use of
Christian terms. Deceived by their employment of
these, men have fancied that the Ethnic myth con
tained proof that the leading features of the Christian
faith were largely pre-Christian. This is not unlike
the experience of simple-minded passengers a
generation ago, who not unfrequently clearly saw
1 Matthew i. 21.
F
�66
--
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the Equator—or fancied they did—when “ crossing
the line.” It was afterwards shewn that the reason
why they saw it was because a thread had been
carefully placed inside the telescope. On the other
hand, as has already been pointed out, the evidence
for our Lord’s actual resurrection1 is so strong that
it is incapable of being explained away. It was not
necessary therefore that Christians, when going forth
at the risk of their lives, in obedience to the com
mand they had heard from Christ’s own lips after
His resurrection, to preach the Gospel to all creation,
should undertake the Herculean task of forming an
eclectic but holy religion for themselves from the
faiths which had filled the world with vice unspeak
able. Nor was it possible for them to mistake a
myth for a fact and imagine that their Master had
risen from the dead because, forsooth, in an abso
lutely different sense, Tammuz was said to have
returned to earth for some months every year, or
Osiris to reign as king of the dead in the Egyptian
1 It is noteworthy that there is not, and, as far as we know, never
has been in the world any religion except the Christian based upon
the real or alleged resurrection of its Founder. We have seen that
the religions dealt with in this chapter are not so supported. Nor is
Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or any other faith. When the
Bab was in danger of being put to death in Persia, his followers
believed that bullets could not hurt him. But when he was killed,
though he had claimed to be the Messiah (among other things), and
though the Babis knew that Christ was stated to have risen from the
dead, they did not once try to assert that their Prophet, though an
Incarnation, had come to life again. The fact is that such an event
is in the highest degree incredible, and nothing short of the most
absolutely indisputable proof could convince anyone of it. This
proof was present only in a single instance—the resurrection of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Of no other great Teacher could it even be
asserted. Yet Mr. Vivian Phelips ventures to affirm about St. Paul’s
time, “We know that this was an age when the resurrection of any
great prophet was taken to be a normal event” ! 1! (0/. «’A, p. 58).
It would be very interesting to know the names of some of the great
prophets of whom Mr. Vivian Phelips was thinking when he wrote
this romantic assertion.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
67
Hades. Had it not been for their Master’s resurrec
tion they would have had neither a Gospel nor
,a commission, nor faith for their task, nor a motive
for undertaking it, with the assured prospect that
the world would hate them as it had hated Christ,
and that in it they would have tribulation.1 But the
theory we are considering makes greater demands
upon our credulity than even this implies. The early
Christians, when they began to spread their faith,
must have known something of the Master from
Whom their enemies derived the name they gave the
“brethren.” They could have been in no doubt
about His actual existence. They must have known
at least as much as did Tacitus, that “the originator
of that name, Christ, had been executed by the pro
curator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.” 1
2
As He was a historical person whom they had known
and loved, they at least were hardly likely to mistake
Him for a sun-myth.
We have in our Gospels, and to a less degree in the
Epistles, a portraiture 3 of Christ, evidently the image
of Him which dwelt in the hearts of His early
disciples and justified some in the next generation in
speaking of themselves4 as carrying Christ with
them. His Resurrection is in keeping with His pre
dictions and with His whole character and the purpose
of His life and His death as there described and
explained. To what is that portrait due? Is it the
work of honest men imperfectly depicting a character
So perfect that they have failed to do it justice? Or
is it due to Fiction,5 Myth, or Hallucination ?
1 Cf. e.g, John xvi., 33.
2 Tacitus, Annates, Lib. xv., 44.
8 See Row’s Jesus of the Evangelists ; Seeley’s Ecce Homo ; Simpson,
77z« Fact of Christ.
4 Martyrium S. Ignatii, cap. 2.
s Mr. Vivian Phelips writes: “Nothing is more conceivable than
that the Bible story may spuriously embellish the real life of Jesus
�68
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
A study of the whole literature of the world—
ancient and modern—is now possible to us, and we
are thus able to judge for ourselves what success all
these factors, together or apart, have had in enabling
the most talented writers and most gifted thinkers,
philosophers, and poets of any or every age and
clime to represent the ideally Perfect Man. Indian
literature depicts for us the characters of Rama and
Krishna; Greek, those of Achilles, Agamemnon, and
Ulysses; Latin, that of the pious Jineas. Which
of these can we compare with the Gospel portraiture
of Christ? Yet the Evangelists were not poets,
philosophers, or men of great learning, or talented
writers. “The1 very language which they used was
not classical Greek. On internal evidence we should
conclude that only one or two of them at most can
possibly have been writing in their native language.
They were, therefore, very heavily handicapped
indeed. Hardly any great secular writer has won
distinction, and perhaps not one has come to the
very front rank, in writing in any but his native
tongue. But the Evangelists have, if the theory”
as much as the mythical accounts of Buddha, for instance, spuriously
embellish the real life of Prince Siddhartha” {The Churches and
Modern Thought, pp. 58, 59). This writer has apparently never read
the Apocryphal Gospels, or at least has never considered the character
.of the Jesus there spoken of. In that character and in the incidents
there related we have the product of the romantic spirit of that time.
Had “spurious embellishments” been employed in our Gospels, how
entirely different would have been the portraiture presented to us !
It is safe to say that the Apocryphal Gospels are invaluable, because
they shew us what our genuine books would have been had the mythic
influence been at work in them. That they differ toto ccelo in spirit
from these Apocryphal romances shews that the same tendency could
not have given rise to two such entirely opposite results. As the
Apocryphal Gospels are the result of the growth of myth or fiction, the
canonical Gospels cannot be such. Mr. E. Benson well says, “His
reporters, the Gospel writers, had but an imperfect conception of His
majesty, His ineffable greatness—it could not well be otherwise”
{The House of Quiet, chap. xii.).
1 Religio Critici, pp. 39, 40.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 69
(that their account is unhistorical) “ be correct, con
tended successfully with all the greatest writers of the
world, meeting them on their own ground, and have
. produced a romance which, in the universal judgment
of the whole civilised world, has utterly eclipsed all
others in abiding interest and sustained charm. This
is what we are asked to believe as the only alterna
tive to accepting the Gospels as simple records of
historical facts. But the difficulty of their task is
not done full justice to by stating it thus. Other
writers have for the most part undertaken merely
to draw pictures of a perfect man. The Evangelists
did more; they endeavoured to represent the Perfect
Man shewing Himself such under the most trying
circumstances, but they had to perform their task in
Such a manner that every recorded word and deed
of this character should be in perfect keeping with
the claim which they represent Him as making to be
One with God and the one Manifestation of God.
Still more, they have actually succeeded in doing all
this so successfully that the conception of God thus
formed in their minds has become the only one
possible to even the highest minds in all lands,
even at the beginning of the twentieth century
after the birth of Christ. Moreover, they, without
any model to guide them, had to make their romance
so real that it would be accepted as true for many
ages, and would be acknowledged, even by those who
disbelieved it, to be the lifelike delineation of ‘ the
one character, without the idea of whom in the mind
personal piety is impossible.’ Can any imaginable
degree of credulity accept such a theory as this?
Yet, if the character of the Jesus of the Evangelists
be not strictly true and real, this is what the Evan
gelists did.”
In conclusion, we must consider the vast difference
between the effects produced by the Ethnic myth -
�70
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and those which resulted from
the Christian Gospel of the Resurrection of Christ
Jesus. Seldom has the evidence of the universal
corruption of morals which quite naturally and in
evitably1 flowed from the Nature-myth been more
carefully detailed than by Dr. Frazer. What, on the
other hand, was the result produced as a necessary
consequence of the reception of faith in the Risen2
Christ ?
Let us hear in the first place what Pliny, their
judge, torturer, and in some cases executioner, states
that he learnt from early Christian converts as
to the duties imposed upon them by their faith.
“ They3 used to assert that the sum of (be it their
fault or) their error was this, that they had been
accustomed on a fixed day to meet together before
dawn, and to repeat to one another alternately a
hymn to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by
a sacrament not to the commission of any crime, but
not to commit thefts, robberies, adulteries, not to
break their word, not to deny a thing entrusted
to them when called upon to restore it.” Even
1 Seneca says of poets who ascribed evil deeds to the gods : “ Quid
aliud est vitia nostra incendere, quam auctores illis inscribere deos ? ”
[De Erev. Vitae, cap. 16).
2 Dr. Frazer’s method of treating this matter is unworthy of any
unbiased investigator. He implies that, as Zela in Eastern Pontus
appears to have been the chief religious centre of the district, as
Christianity had spread there very .much by the time Pliny wrote
(a.d. i 12), as Zela was noted for its great sanctuary of Anaitis or
Semiramis, as at Comana in the same district a religious festival of a
vile nature was held in honour of this goddess, and as Corinth,
famous for debauchery, was likewise a place where Christianity was
early preached, therefore there was a close connexion between Chris
tianity and these abominations. “ Such,” he says, “ were some of the
hotbeds in which the seeds of Christianity first struck root.” It would
have been more honest if he had quoted, for example, St. Paul’s letters
to or from these “hotbeds” (as in the text I have quoted one written
from Corinth itself, i.e. I Thess.) to show us what connexion, if any,
the evil practices of those places had with Christian precepts.
3 Pliny, Epp. Lib. x., No. 96.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 71
tender women1 under torture could not be compelled
to confess that Christians were guilty of any worse
crimes than these, nor did renegades themselves
accuse those whom they had deserted of working
w the1 desire of the Gentiles ” and of having, like the
2
worshippers of the Powers of Nature, “walked in
lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries.” On the contrary,
Pliny himself tells us that, in consequence of the
large number of those who had been converted from
heathenism to Christianity, the temples of the gods
had “already3 been almost deserted,” doubtless
because Christians had felt themselves called out
of darkness to light and bound to walk as children
of light. It required all the tortures that he could
inflict to compel some of the weaker sort to abandon
Christ. When this was done, “the4 temples once
more began to be thronged, and the sacred sdlemnities which had long ceased began to be observed
again,” those of Anaitis and other Nature-goddesses
doubtless among them. Braver Christians preferred
death5 to returning to these abominations. Such
was the contrast which both Christians and heathens
perceived between Christianity and the worship of
those Nature-powers for which the district had long
been 6 noted. They were in no danger of confound
ing the two religions—the one pure, the other
impure; the one resting on personal knowledge
of the Crucified and Risen Christ, the other on an
1 “Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae minigtrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta quaerere. Sed nihil
aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam et immodicam” (ibid.}.
2 1 Peter iv. 3. Peter wrote to the “Dispersion” in Pontus and
that neighbourhood.
3 Pliny, op cit.
4 Ibid.
8 “ Supplicium minatus : perseverantes duci iussi” (ibid.}.
6 Strabo, xii., 3, 32, and 36; also xii., 2, 3.
�72
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
allegorical representation of the annual “ decay1 and
revival of plant life.”
We turn now from external testimony to internal.
St. Paul, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, the
founder of so many Churches, has left us his epistles
to those very Churches, and from them we can judge
what attitude Christianity adopted from a moral
standpoint with regard to the prevalent heathenism
of the time. From Corinth, notorious for its sen
suality, he writes to the Thessalonians, reminding1
2
them what he had taught them. “ For3 this is
the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye
abstain from fornication ; that each one of you know
how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctifi
cation and honour, not in the passion of lust, even as
the Gentiles which know not God.” It is hardly
necessary to quote from his other epistles to shew
how sternly he denounced all such evils whether in
Corinth4 or elsewhere. The attitude which Chris
tianity from the very first assumed to all these crimes
was that of absolute opposition. No one who com
mitted them had “ any 5 inheritance in the kingdom
of Christ and God.” Hence those very practices
which were of compulsory observance in the case
of the Nature-gods and the goddesses associated
with them—Cybele, Ishtar, Anaitis, and the rest—
were so contrary to Christianity that indulgence in
them ipso facto put the sinner out of the Church.
Nay more, corrupt as many portions of the Universal
Church have since at various times become, this
particular series of sins, which were essentially sacred
actions in the belief of the worshipper of Adonis and
1
2
3
4
5
Adonis, Attis, Osiris, p. 186.
i Thessalonians iv. 2.
1 Thessalonians iv. 3-5.
1 Corinthians vi. 9-11 ; v. 9-13, etc.
Ephesians v. 5.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 73
Attis, have never by Christians been met with any
thing but the sternest denunciation as deadly to
body, soul, and spirit.
In our own day, when the predicted “ falling away ”■*■
has begun, when our newspapers speak cheerfully of
the fading of belief in historical or “dogmatic”
Christianity, as a natural consequence we see a revival
of those very theories and practices with which
Christianity engaged in. a life and death struggle in
.tile early days. Man, held to have sprung from the
brute, is too often excused if he tries to return thither.
As a French writer says, “The2 notion of Law is
obliterated ; between individuals, classes, nations,
appetite is proclaimed as the measure of right; every
where is the unfolding of the Ego, bestial or sancti
monious ; literature is dedicated to various forms of
rut, and extreme intellectual refinement leads back
by every way to the unbridling of the human brute.”
So it was in the last years of the previous dispensa
tion, so it is in France now, and so it must be in
every land in proportion to the progress in it made
by those very same tendencies of thought and con
duct which led to the fearful state of things that
prevailed at the time when our Lord came “ to save
His people from their sins.” But this very fact shews
how great a contrast there is now, and always has
been, between the spirit which animated the wor
shippers of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, and that which
worked in the hearts, minds, and lives of the Apostles
of Christ. Let us not mistake darkness for light,
evil for good, Christ for Belial. Even to the present
day, wherever it has not been overthrown by Chris
tianity, the ancient worship of the procreative powers
of Nature still continues. We find it in India in our
1 2 Thessalonians ii., 3, 7) dirocrracrla, “the Revolt,” cf. Farrar, The
Witness of History to Christ, pp. 6-8.
2 J. Darmesteter, Les Proph'etes <TIsrael, Pref., p. x.
�74
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
own time, where these powers are represented as
Siva, and his wife Durga, where 30,000,000 of stone
phallic emblems are said to be worshipped in different
parts of the country, and where unfortunate girl
children are “ married to the god ” to-day, for exactly
the same form of worship and service as that which
was rendered by the tepoSovXai of the ancient world.
Neither there nor in Syria of old do we find purity
springing from impurity. Christianity is the anti
thesis of this kind of Nature-worship, while at the
same time the Gospel unfolds to man the truth which
underlies all that mass of error, and which, when
perverted, has, in the modern as in the ancient world,
degraded men below the level of the beasts that
perish.
�OUR MODERN MYTHOLOGISTS
versus
THE VIRGIN-BIRTH
RECENT writer informs us that, in his opinion,
there are certain “ ideas, universal in their range,
and found fully developed in the depths of savagery,
which, rising with mankind from plane to plane of
civilisation, have at last been embodied in the faith
and symbolism of the loftiest and most spiritual of
the great religions of the world—the religion of
civilised Europe” (Hartland, Legend of Perseus, Vol.
I., 1894, preface). The one idea of this description
which he selects to prove his thesis is that of a
supernatural Birth.
Another writer expresses himself thus : “ Of all
old-world legends, the death and resurrection of
a virgin-born, or in some way divinely-born, Saviour
was the most widespread ” (Mr. Vivian Phelips, The
Churches and Modern Thought, p. 59).
A third author says, “ Such tales of virgin-mothers
are relics of an age of childish ignorance, when men
had not yet recognised the intercourse of the sexes
as the true cause of offspring. That ignorance, still
shared by the lowest of existing savages, the ab
original tribes of Australia, was doubtless at one time
universal among mankind ” (Dr. Frazer, Adonis, Attis,
Osiris, Bk. II., p. 220).
The first two of these writers make a very definite
assertion, and the third endeavours to frame a theory
75
�76
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
to account for the fact which they have so positively
alleged. We shall see that careful study of the whole
subject proves that the asserted fact of the widespread
belief in the Virgin-birth of a Saviour among the
supporters of Ethnic faiths does not rest upon solid
foundations. But even if it did, Dr. Frazer’s hypothesis
to account for such a belief is hardly satisfactory.
We must briefly examine it before proceeding to test
the alleged fact which it is intended to explain.
Dr. Frazer (i) asserts that the savages of Australia
are ignorant of a certain matter of universal ex
perience ; and (2) then uses the world “ doubtless ”
as all-sufficient evidence (it must suffice, for he has
none other to adduce) in proof of his theory that this
ignorance was once shared by all men, and was the
cause of the asserted widespread belief in Virgin
births. In such a case it would be natural to suppose
that, as the hypothetical savage at first imagined all
births to be Virgin-births, therefore, when he found
that this was not generally the case, he would at once
give up all belief in such phenomena. But Dr.
Frazer supposes that the savage drew this conclusion
in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases, and yet in the
thousandth instance still clung to his “ childish
ignorance.” If so, we have to enquire why he did
this. The theory does not explain it.
It is by no means certain that even the aborigines
of Australia, or any single tribe among them, really
were ever in such a state of ignorance. To say
nothing of the evidence afforded by the vocabularies
of their languages, the very strict rules which exist
in every tribe to regulate marriage within certain
strictly defined limits and the prohibition of adultery
inculcated in the tribal “ mysteries,” both these things
render it more than doubtful whether the Australian
aborigines are or ever were ignorant of the physio
logical fact referred to. There is absolutely no evidence
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
77
then that the supposed original savage “ shared ” an
ignorance which did not exist even in Australia. If
he did not, Dr. Frazer’s explanation falls to the
ground.
It requires a great deal of credulity to enable any
one to accept his theory. The self-mutilation of
Attis in the fable, and that of the Galli in history, do
not look as if people were ever so very ignorant as he
would have us believe. The details which he gives
of the method adopted in order to promote the
fertility of the soil, by imitating what people supposed
to be the fertilising and procreative processes at work
in the world around them, serve rather to shew how
continually such thoughts obsessed men’s minds even
in very ancient days. The widespread idea that the
Sky was the Father of all things in a very literal
sense, and Earth their Mother, tends in the same
direction. When, in addition to this, we consider
the almost universal prevalence of phallic worship,
we are compelled to withhold assent to Dr. Frazer’s
attempted explanation of belief in Virgin-birth.
Some writers have persistently confounded with
one another two very distinct things: (i) Virgin
birth, and (2) birth attributed in some other manner
to supernatural influence. As the Christian faith is
concerned only with the former, and that too only in
the case of our Lord, it is imperatively necessary to
distinguish these from one another. This Mr. Sidney
Hartland has not done. The whole question is of
considerable interest, and doubtless much may be
learnt from studying it carefully. But in order that
this may be possible we must recognise the distinc
tion to which we have called attention. To con
found two different things is quite unscientific, and
can hardly be conducive to clearness of thought or
to an accurate conclusion.
By distinguishing between the two different kinds
�78
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of alleged supernatural birth, we are able to dispense
with the consideration of every instance in which
birth from a Virgin is not distinctly mentioned as an
essential part of the narrative. Those which, though
supposed to be in some manner supernatural, are in
no sense Virgin-births form the vast majority, both
in mythology, Greek, Roman, Hindu, etc., and in
folk-lore and fairy tales. With regard to these it is
sufficient for our present purpose to say that they
bear witness to men’s consciousness that there is no
effect without a cause. They felt that people in any
way specially remarkable required to be accounted
for somehow. Fairy tales may be an evidence of
ancient belief in Animism, perhaps of nothing else.
But legends connected with the birth of actual
historical characters are of interest, because they
shew a belief in Divine interposition, and in some
thing remotely resembling a Divine mission.
What is remarkable is that, while in mythology
supernatural births of the second class are common
enough, yet Virgin-birth hardly ever appears either
in Ethnic mythology or in fables about well-known
historical characters. This is a point upon which it
is necessary to insist, because it is one not generally
recognised. Those who are acquainted with classical
mythology will readily understand what we mean.
The Greek myths about the birth of the off
spring of Zeus by human mothers, such as yEgina,
Alcmena, Europa, Io, and Maia, for example, were
in no sense associated with Virgin-birth. On. the
contrary, the myths are most unpleasantly realistic
from the material point of view. Zeus, we are told,
transformed himself into a bull on one occasion, into
a man on another, always employing a material
form for the purpose. When we remember that the
myth originally denoted that the fertility of the earth
is due to the rain from the sky, we shall see that the
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
79
material element is an essential part of the story.
People were so well aware that the union of the
sexes is necessary to the production of offspring
that they could not conceive of the fertility of the
earth without explaining it in the same way. The
gods and goddesses themselves, as we learn from
Homer, were possessed of material bodies, capable
of being mutilated or wounded in battle, needing
refreshment in sleep, nourishment at the banquet.
Hence the tales told about Zeus’ conduct with
reference to those mortals, who by him became
the mothers of Hercules and other demigods, were
certainly not intended by those who invented and
accepted these myths to imply the Virgin-birth of
these fabulous heroes. Hindu mythology is strikingly
similar to Greek in the carnal vileness of its narra
tives. It is quite possible that these were originally
mere allegories, and as Nature-myths were free from
offence; but in mythology they soon became some
thing very different.
One of the earliest Greek opponents of Christianity,
whose work has in part been preserved to us—Celsus
—refers to the myths relating to the births of
Perseus (thus anticipating Mr. Sidney Hartland),
Amphion, ?Eacus, and Minos, and argues from them
in opposition to the Christian belief in our Lord’s
Virgin-birth. In his reply Origen points to the tales
regarding Danae, Melanippe, Auge, and Antiope
as a proof that even the heathens felt that it was
necessary to account in some supernatural way for
the existence of persons far superior to ordinary
humanity. Reasoning from this admission he
enquires which was the more suitable in Christ’s
case, a birth in accordance with the usual order of
things, or one of quite a different kind. Such a
reply would be unanswerable; but it would have
been well had Origen then gone on to point out
�8o
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the difference between such myths as those of the
Greeks, which did not imply Virgin-birth, and the
Gospel narratives which his opponent had assailed.
Among persons who have actually played a part
in history, if we may except certain dynasties of
kings such as the Pharaohs, it is rare to find any
whose birth is said to have been in any way super
natural. Mr. Vivian Phelips tells us that “the
disciples of Plato, centuries before the Christian
era,” believed that he was born of a virgin {The
Churches and Modern Thought, p. 128). This is an
error. Diogenes Laertius, who wrote about 200 A.D.,
mentions the fable that Perictione, Plato’s mother,
received a visit from Apollo, but he does not attach
any credit to it, nor does he imply that a single one
of Plato’s disciples really believed anything of the
sort. Nor, in such a case, could it be said that they
held any belief in Virgin-birth. Suidas is also re
ferred to in support of the fable; but, as he wrote
about 1100 A.D., his authority cannot be considered
of any importance. Justin the historian in his
epitome of Trogus Pompeius (Lib. XV., chap. 4)
mentions a similar legend about Seleucus, saying
that it was sometimes stated that, though Laudice
his mother was the wife of Antiochus, one of Philip
of Macedon’s leading generals, his father was Apollo.
Here again the myth did not mention a w>g7>z-birth,
nor was it seriously accepted by anyone. In fact,
such statements seem to have been merely poetical
quotations, so to speak, from the old mythology, the
intention being to flatter Seleucus or Plato, as the
case might be, by comparing him to Aesculapius or
some other legendary character who was said to be
a son of the brilliant god.
Alexander the Great, when his success in war had
turned his head, claimed divine descent, but this was
due to the fact that the priest of Ammon in Egypt
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
81
had, in accordance with Egyptian custom, termed
the king son of that god, whom the Greeks identified
with their own Zeus. Hence it was supposed that
Philip of Macedon had not been his real father.
But this brings us to the consideration of Eastern
hales of this nature. We discover them first among
the Semites of Babylon, where the king came to be
recognised as a god, and hence required divine
descent to be predicated regarding him. According
to Professor Sayce, the deification of the Pharaohs
was due to “the Asiatic element in the Egyptian
population” (Religions of Ancient Eg. and Bab.,
pp. 43j 351j 352)- Hence each Pharaoh was de
clared to be “Son of the Sungod” (Se Ra). But,
though some modern writers have incorrectly spoken
Of the Egyptian texts as teaching the virgin-birth of
one or more of these monarchs, this is not the case.
For example, the expression has been used regard
ing Amon-hotep III (Sayce, op. cit., pp. 249, 250), but
the language of the inscription which tells of that
monarch’s conception is only too unmistakably clear.
The god Amon-Ra is there represented as saying
that he had “ incarnated himself in the royal person
Of this husband, Thothmes IV ” (see Sayce’s own
Version, ibidi). The text explains that, this being
taken for granted, Amon-hotep’s birth was quite in
accordance with the usual order of things, though
his divinity is asserted, according to custom, because
his father, Thothmes IV, being a Pharaoh, was as
such an incarnation of the Sungod.
In China we find, in the case of one historical
person, and one other who may be historical, a fable
which puts us strikingly in mind of some of the
fairy tales which Mr. Sidney Hartland has collected
in reference to beings who have never existed at
all. It is stated that the mother of Fo-hi, the
mythical founder of the Chinese Empire, ate a
G
�82
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
flower which she found lying on her clothes on her
return from bathing. In consequence of this her
son was born. The ancestor of the Manchu dynasty
was also said to have been conceived in almost
exactly the same way, except that his mother ate a
red fruit instead of a flower. Such myths abound in
folk-lore, but they are rarely connected with persons
who really existed {Legend of Perseus, Vol. I., pp. 106,
107). Fo-hi’s existence is very doubtful, which
perhaps accounts for the matter. The same tale
(practically) that was told about him was told about
the founder of a rival dynasty, possibly through con
fusion between them. Not only is it impossible to
discover how many ages after their deaths these tales
first arose, but also there is no proof that they were
ever intended to be believed.
The assertion that the worshippers of Attis,
Mithra, and Krishna all believed in the virgin
birth of their respective deity has already been
tested in these pages and proved devoid of founda
tion. We have also examined a similar statement
made regarding Buddha, and have seen that it is
quite unfounded. The way in which such things
are rashly affirmed nowadays among us well ex
emplifies what Newman somewhere calls “reckless
assertion based on groundless assumption.”
Mr. Vivian Phelips assures us that “in Persia
Zoroaster was miraculously conceived” {The
Churches, etc., p. 128). If by this he means to say
that the Zoroastrians really believed that their great
teacher was born of a virgin, it is at least strange
that nothing whatever is said on the subject, either in
the Avesta itself or in later Zoroastrian works. It
is not too much to say that the idea is entirely due
to modern mythology. In the Avesta itself we
are told that Zoroaster’s father was a man named
Pourushaspa (Vendidad, xix. 6, cf. vv. 6 and 46;
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
83
Yasna, ix. 13; Yasht, V. 18, xxiii. 4, xxiv. 2), and
his genealogy is traced back for ten generations.
His mother’s name, Dughdhova (later Dogdo), does
not occur in the Avesta, so far was any thought of
virgin-birth from occurring to the Zoroastrians, even
in the comparatively late times in which much of
the Avesta was composed. We are informed that
Zoroaster was born to reward his father for being so
faithful in offering libations of the sacred haomajuice. and that is all. Myths did ultimately grow up
about the historical Zoroaster. Pliny, for instance,
tells us that Zoroaster laughed on the day of his
birth, and that he lived for thirty years in the wilder
ness on cheese (Lib., XXX. 1, 2, § 39). Yet he
knew nothing about anything miraculous in con
nexion with his birth. Even in the Dasatir i Asmani,
a Pahlavi work composed at earliest in the time of
the Sasanides, we are merely told that Zoroaster
was son (perhaps descendant) of Spitama and traced
his ancestry to Luhrasp, and that he was a prophet.
In the Shahnamah (beginning of Vol. Ill) we learn
that Zoroaster was a prophet, but nothing is told us
about virgin-birth. Even in the Zaratusht-Namah,
dated A.D. 1278, there is nothing of this kind re
corded. From tradition we learn_that Pourushaspa
drank some
juice, in which Ormazd had placed
Zoroaster’s fravashi (soul). Thereafter Dughdova
conceived her son in the usual way (Dinkart, vii.,
2. 7-10, 14, sqq.\ Yasht, iii., 2, 6; Yasht, xix., 81 ;
Zaratan, sect, iv., vv. 68, sqqij. So far from this
being an instance of virgin-birth, Zoroaster was the
third of five brothers (Zad Sparam, xv., 5).1 Hence
it is clear either that Mr. Phelips uses words with an
esoteric meaning, or that here again facts are so un
fortunate as not quite to agree with his statements.
1 Vide Rosenburgh’s edition of the text of the Zaratusht-Namali,
(St. Petersburg, 1904),
�84
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
The same writer, turning to Egypt for a moment,
makes a very important statement about one of
the deities worshipped there. “In Egypt,” he says,
“ Horus, who had the epithet of ‘ Saviour,’ was born
of the virgin Isis. The Egyptian Bible, remember,
is the oldest in the world” (The Churches, etc.,
p. 128). This must mean (1) that the Book of the
Dead styles Horus “ Saviour,” and (2) that the same
book states that his mother Isis was a virgin. These
statements are of great interest, and the only thing
which can in any degree be held to lessen their
importance is the fact that they are not quite correct.
This, of course, is a mere detail, often overlooked
in modern mythology. Maspero tells us that,
amid the tangled wilderness of Egyptian myths,
there is one which represents the cow, Isis, as pro
ducing a son, Horus, independently. But this
might be styled ^z/^r-birth more correctly than
anything else. He explains this as intended to
signify the great fertility of the Delta. No such
myth, however, appears in “the Egyptian Bible,”
nor among the many titles there given to “ Horus,
son of Isis,” is there one that can rightly be trans
lated “ Saviour ” in any possible sense. In the Book
of the Dead, Horus is called “ Horus inhabiter of the
Sun-disc, Horus of the two eyes, Horus without
eyes, Horus the blue-eyed, Horus son of Isis, Horus
son of Hathor, Horus son of Osiris, Horus begotten
of Ptah, Horus dweller in blindness, Horus traveller
of eternity, Horus the avenger of his father, Horus
in the pilot’s place in the boat, Horus of the two
horizons,” many of which titles show that he was a
Sun-god. But he is not called “Saviour.” As for
the virgin-birth of Horus, which is the matter under
consideration, so far is this from being taught in
“the Egyptian Bible,” that, as we have seen, more
than one father is there ascribed to him. Dr. Budge
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
85
well sums up the information on the subject given
us in the book by saying that Isis is represented as
raising up the body of the murdered Osiris and
“ being united to him ” before she conceived and
brought forth her son Horus. Horus was therefore
a posthumous son of Osiris, whose death he under
took to avenge (Introd, to version of Book of the
Dead, p. lxxx.). This fact, that Osiris was Horus’
father, is confirmed by a Hymn to Osiris quoted
by Chabas {Revue Archeologique, 1857, p. 65).
Plutarch’s account agrees with this {De Iside et
Osiride, cap. 19). The details are so fully given
in such clear and undisguised language that they
entirely remove any doubt whatever regarding the
manner of Horus’ conception. Plutarch tells also
of an elder Horus
cit., cap. 12), and his narrative
results in the conviction that even when she herself
was born Isis was no longer a virgin. An instructive
idea of the Egyptian belief regarding Isis is given
in Professor Maspero’s Les Inscriptions des Pyramids
de Saqqarah, from which Dr. Budge gives an extract
{Book of the Dead, Introd., p. cxxxiv.). This should
suffice to shew how far the worship of Isis was from
leading to moral purity of heart or life, as more
than one modern mythologist has asserted it did.
We cannot venture to transcribe such passages for
obvious reasons. What has been already said, how
ever, should suffice. Let us hope that in the case
of such a highly imaginative writer as Mr. Vivian
Phelips the dictum of Schlegel may ultimately be
verified. “ The extremes of error, when this has
reached the acme of extravagance, often accelerate
the return to truth” {Philosophy of History, Lecture 1,
finf
Passing from ancient times to time still future, we
find in the religious books of the Zoroastrians the
statement that, before the end of the world, three
�86
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
prophets, descendants of Zoroaster, are to be born at
intervals, to teach people his law. They will be
messengers of Ahura Mazda, and will co-operate
with one another in destroying all the mischief
wrought by demops and men {Yasht, xiii., 142).
Though born of three different mothers, they will be
in the most literal? manner sprung from Zoroaster’s
seed. Regarding not a single one of these future
prophets is any hint given that he was expected to
be virgin-born, as is often stated by modern mythologists. The fact is that such clear details are given
about the manner of the conception of each that it is
impossible to translate them into a modern language.
One of the three is Saoshyant,1 also called Astvatereta. His mother’s name will be Vispa-taurvI, and
she will conceive him while bathing in Lake Kasavl.
A slightly different form of the myth, in which
Ormazd is to take the part of Zoroaster as parent of
the child, is mentioned by Eznik {Refutation of
Heresies, Armenian original, Bk. II., cap, x., p. 133
of the Constantinople ed. of 1873). Whichever of the
two accounts we take, Mr. J. M. Robertson’s asser
tion that Saoshyant is Virgin-born in ParsI myth
ology {Pagan Christs, p. 339) is incorrect. He
seems, moreover, to have studied the subject rather
cursorily, as he evidently confounds Saoshyant, the
future prophet, with Sraosha the archangel.
Thus our careful investigation of the subject leads
1 De hoc Horomazae nuntio futuro, illo in libro, qui Creatio
{Bilndihishriih} appellatur, dicitur fore ut, saeculi iam appropin- •
quante fine, haec puella in eo, cuius mentionem fecimus, lacu corpus
abluens, e Zoroastris semine ibi servato gravida facta filium pariat.
Num puella semine virili gravida virgo appellari potest ? The account
of the conception of Saoshyant’s companions, Ukhshat-ereta and
Ukhshat-nemanh, is similar. Vide Vendidad xix, 4-6; Yasht xiii.,
128, 142; Bundihishnih xxxii., 8, 9. The date of Yasht xiii. is
approximately fixed at about 200 b.c. by the fact of the mention of
Gaotema (Gautama Buddha) in § 16.
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
87
to the conclusion: (i) that Virgin-birth, strictly socalled, either forms no part whatever of any great
religion but the Christian, or that it has crept in, if at
all, only very Jate indeed; (2) that even in myth
ology (which Mr. Grant Allen quite wisely dis
tinguishes from religion) mention of anything which
at all resembles Virgin-birth is extremely rare; (3)
but that, on the other hand, tales of supernatural
births of an entirely different kind are found in some
religions, and especially in mythologies. These facts
are well worthy of reflection, but they do not at all
bear out the assertions which we have quoted at
the beginning of this chapter. Folk-lore and myth
ology show that stories of supernatural births which
bear no resemblance to the Gospel narrative were
and are current in different lands among the mass of
the ignorant, though it is clear from the way these
tales are told that they are not taken in earnest even
by the most credulous. They should fittingly be
ranked with fairy tales or such stories as those re
lated in the Arabian Nights, in Appuleius, and in
other works of fiction composed for the amusement
and entertainment of the uneducated, or of those for
whom literature of a more serious character, if it
existed, possessed little charm.
Should evidence ever be forthcoming to prove
what has certainly not yet been proved, that belief in
Virgin-birth was at one time widespread, we shall
then have to try to account for it. Dr. Frazer
assumes that this belief was extensively held, and he
assumes, in order to explain this, (1) that men were
originally in a savage state, and (2) that they were
then ignorant of a physiological fact of some im
portance. We have already briefly commented on
the second of these two assumptions. The former of
the two has been often stated as a fact and not as
a theory. But there are grave difficulties in the way
�88
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of our accepting it.1 As Professor Sayce says, “ It
has first to be proved that modern savagery is not
due to degeneration rather than to arrested develop
ment, and that the forefathers of the civilised nations
. s of the ancient world were ever on the same level as
' ' the savage of to-day. In fact, the savage of to-day
is not, and cannot be, a representative of primitive
man. If the ordinary doctrine of development is
right, primitive man would have known nothing of
those essentials of human life and progress of which
no savage community has hitherto been found to be
destitute. He would have known nothing of the art
of producing fire, nothing of language, without which
human society would be impossible. On the other
hand, if the civilised races of mankind possessed from
•f- the outset the germs of culture and the power to
develop it, they can in no way be compared with the
savages of the modern world, who have lived,
generation after generation, stationary and un
progressive, like the beasts that perish, even though
at times they may have been in contact with a higher
civilisation. To explain the religious beliefs and
usages of the Greeks and Romans from the religious
ideas and customs of Australians or Hottentots
is in most cases but labour in vain ; and to seek the
origin of Semitic religion in the habits and super
stitions of low-caste Bedawm is like looking to the
gipsies for an explanation of European Christianity ”
(Rel. of Ancient Eg. and Bab., pp. 17, 18). M. Renan
also writes, “No branch of the Indo-European or the
Semitic races has fallen to the savage state. Every
where these two races reveal themselves to us with
a certain degree of culture. ... We must therefore
suppose that civilised races have not passed through
the savage state, and that they bore in themselves
1 See my Comparative Religion, ch. i., Longmans and Co., 1/-.
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
89
from the beginning the germ of future progress ”
{Hist. Gen. des Langues Sems. Vol. I., p. 484).
It is impossible, therefore, to grant the assumption
that men were originally savages, and that modern
savages’ beliefs represent those from which all religions
have sprung. It would be manifestly absurd and
unhistorical to derive our Christian doctrines from
the superstitions of wandering gipsies, but to some
people it seems quite scientific to imagine that they
have practically sprung from savages in the condition
of the Australian aborigines. Until somewhat better
proof is afforded us than has yet been adduced, how
ever, we can hardly be expected, from any point of
view, to admit that, as Mr. SidneyTIartland suggests,
the doctrine of our Lord’s Virgin-birth has become
embodied in the Christian faith on no better ground
than that of the survival of a belief “ fully developed
in the depths of savagery.” There is no proof that
savages hold or have ever held such a doctrine at all;
nor is there any really conclusive proof that the
civilised nations of the world have ever passed
through a condition at all resembling that of the
savages still to be found in a few of the countries of
the world.
Although belief in Virgin-birth, properly so called,
cannot be proved to have been widespread, yet there
can be no doubt that in many parts of the world we do
find stories which assert something supernatural in the
case of fabulous heroes, and to a less degree in that
of certain great men of the past. We have seen that
it is impossible to derive the Christian doctrine of
Christ’s Virgin-birth from such sources, especially as
it arose among Jews, who had no such myths current
among them. But the question remains, How did the
idea of supernatural births arise among the heathen ?
Are these all to be accounted for, as some undoubtedly
may be, by considering them to be Nature-myths?
�90
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Or may there be a deeper meaning in them ? May
they not have sprung up through some ancient
tradition, misunderstood and corrupted ? And may
not their preservation, if not their origination, evince
the existence of a felt need, the yearning of the human
heart for some proof of the nearness and the care of
the Divine ?
.
Dr. Frazer says, “ The notion . . . of a human being
endowed with divine or supernatural powers belongs
essentially to that earlier period of religious history in
which gods and men are still viewed as beings of much
the same order, and before they are divided by the
impassable gulf which, to later thought, opens out
between them (“Golden Bough” 2nd Ed., Vol. I.,
P- I3i)May it not, on the contrary, be that it was just to
prevent men from feeling themselves separated from
God by a deep “impassable gulf,” that human con
sciousness of need readily grasped the tradition which,
found among so many nations, declared that at one
time the gods had walked with men ? Tradition told
of a Golden Age and of a Fall: but even the narrative
of the occurrence of the latter proved the conviction
that at one time it had been possible for man to enjoy
communion with his Maker. If any lingering remem
brance of that happy age survived—and this we know
was the case—it was not unlikely that men would
enquire whether there was still hope of restoration to
their lost estate. Hence the Divine Promise of a
coming Saviour, to be born of a woman (Gen. iii. 15),
would very naturally be cherished, in some form or
other, among men. It would not be strange were
theories to arise on the subject, and if these theories
were degraded more and more in proportion as the
conception of the Divine declined among the heathen
nations. Men might readily suppose that there would
be something supernatural about the birth of the
*
■ ■ »
t
L *■
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
9i
promised Saviour, and this may, in some measure,
account for such legends on the subject as were really
believed in some parts of the ancient world. The idea
would, no doubt, be easily capable of great abuse ; it
might degenerate into an incident in popular fables ;
but none the less it would, in the minds of the
thoughtful and pious, prevent the growth of that
feeling of an utter and hopeless separation between
God and man which must otherwise have come about.
On the other hand, if we suppose that popular
fancy, quite independently and with no apparent
reason, evolved the idea of supernatural—nay, even
of Virgin—birth, then we must conclude one of two
things: either (1) that it is an unmeaning delusion,
or (2) that it was developed under Divine guidance.
Here again we reach the same conclusion to which
an examination into the question of sacrifice also
leads {vide, my Comparative Religion^ ch, iii., Long
mans and Co.). If we take the Christian view, every
thing readily falls into its place. We see, indeed, in
Ethnic faiths perversions of originally noble concep
tions, we perceive the gradual progress of degrada
tion in all religions, we find religion often turned
into a curse, as Lucretius thought it {De Rerum
Natura, Lib. I., 63, 64; 79-102; 931,932, etc.), and
not a blessing. Yet throughout all “ one unceasing
purpose runs,” a Divine plan for the education of the
human race in things of the utmost importance to
them, a gradual preparation for a fuller revelation of
God in Christ Jesus, for man’s restoration to the
state of peace with God from which he had fallen.
On the other hand, if we reject this view, everything
is meaningless and absurd, and that too in the most
vital department of human life and history. Religion
has always played, for good or ill, a greater part in
the affairs of the human race than anything else.
As no other department of the world’s affairs has
�92
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
ever been neglected by the Creator, it seems con
trary at once to reason and to analogy to suppose
that this has been overlooked by Him. It is true
that in religious and moral matters we have to make
allowance for the operation of other factors besides
the Divine. Human freewill and the opposition of
evil spiritual powers have, here as elsewhere, intro
duced and continued in existence not only elements
of discord but also evils of the worst description.
Yet all the more on that account, as the religious
instinct has been implanted and perpetuated in man,
must we believe that God’s purpose will ultimately
be wrought out in its guidance and development,
that false views will be gradually eliminated or con
futed, and that every element of truth will be pre
served and caused to shine more and more clearly
for man’s enlightenment and perfecting, until he is at
last restored to that perfect harmony with the will
and character of God which his true and lasting
happiness demands. The more evident may be
come, therefore, the wide diffusion of belief in the
possibility of supernatural birth of whatever kind,
the more clearly shall we see that some truth under
lies the idea, and that there must be some foundation
for the fancy. The false coin presupposes the
genuine, and would never have existed but for it.
In the Gospel, as we learn why men were led to
believe in the possibility of a Divine Incarnation
(see my Comparative Religion, ch. ii.), so we are
taught what is the great fact which accounts for
Ethnic belief in supernatural births. In this respect,
as in others, Christ not only “ fulfilled,l the Law and
the Prophets, but also satisfied and in a sense justi
fied the instinct which in many parts of the world
led men at least to recognise the possibility of a
supernatural birth. The very existence of so many
varied forms of legends of births of this kind shows
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
93
that such a thing is not “unthinkable.” The ex
planation of the belief is not that men were originally
ignorant savages, and that Christianity has incor
porated into itself one of their quite unaccountable
vagaries of thought; on the contrary, it is that, even
when fallen into savagery or into false religious
beliefs, many tribes still preserved in a corrupt form
lingering traces of a remembrance of a Divine Pro
mise which constituted man’s only hope, and which
was fulfilled in the fulness of time.
James Hemetson & Son, Printers, London, N. W.
�TO THE READER
If you are interested in the work of
the North London Christian Evidence
League, please send your name and
address to The Hon. Secretary, who
will gladly send you a booklet giving par
ticulars of the work done by the League
and conditions of Membership.
THE HON. SECRETARY,
N.L.C.E.L.,
146 KENTISH TOWN ROAD,
LONDON, N.W.
�THE NORTH LONDON
, . CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE LEAGUE . .
PUBLISHING DEPARTMENTS
n and 12 HIGH STREET, HAMPSTEAD, N.W.
Telephone 2649 P.O.
WHAT IS THE BIBLE ? Rev. C. L. Drawbridge, M.A.,
Author of Is Religion Undermined? etc. etc.
THE VALUE AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.
Rev. R. Brook, M.A., Tutor, Lecturer, and Chaplain of
Merton College, Oxford
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Rev. R. Bruce Taylor, M.A.,
Presbyterian Church, St. John’s Wood
THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST. Rev. T. A.
Lacey, M.A., Chaplain of London Diocesan Penitentiary.
THE NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES. Rev. C. L.
Drawbridge, M.A.
THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. By J. A. Douglas, B.A.,
B.D., Member of the Senate of London University
THE RESURRECTION AND THE RESURRECTION
BODY. Rev. Canon C. H. Robinson, M.A., Editorial
Sec. S.P.G. Author of books on this and other subjects
PAGAN CHRISTS. Rev. Dr. W. St. Clair Tisdall,
M. A., James Long Lecturer on Oriental Religions. Author
of many books
RELIGION AS AN ART, COMPARED WITH RE
LIGION AS (A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE), A
SCIENCE. Rev. J. H. Rushbrooke, M.A., Minister
of Archway Road Baptist Church
CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL REFORM. Rev. A. J.
Waldron, Vicar of St. Matthew’s, Brixton
ANTHROPOMORPHISM. Rev. J. Monro Gibson, D.D.,
M.A., LL.D., Minister of the Presbyterian Church, St.
John’s Wood, and a very well-known author
PRAYER. Ven. Archdeacon H. E. J. Bevan, M.A., Rector
of Chelsea, Prebendary of St. Paul’s. Examining Chaplain
to the Bishop of London. Archdeacon of Middlesex
The above Lectures, etc., with Questions, Answers, and
Discussions, given at Stanley Hall, are now published in
pamphlet form, and may be obtained from all Booksellers, and
from the Publishing Department of the League.
Price 3d. each, or post free# 4d.
�MS
WORKS BY THE ML
Rev, C. L, DRAWBRIDGE, mB
THE TRAINING OF THE TWIG
9E
An Essay on the Religious Education of the Young
Crown 8vo, 8s. net
POPULAR EDITION. Crown 8vo, paper covers, 6d. net
TWENTY-FIFTH THOUSAND
OLD BELIEFS
AND
NEW KNOWLEDGE
Crown 8vo, paper covers, 6d. net
SEVENTH THOUSAND
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION:
How to Improve it
Crown 8uo, 2s. net; paper covers, 1s. net
IS RELIGION UNDERMINED?!
Crown 8vo, 8s. 6d. net; paper covers, 1s. net
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND GO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
�!W London Christian Evhtenoe
1 League Publications
Sristian and pagan
PARALLELS
W. net. By W. H. H. NASH.
Jlnirodnotibh by Rev. G, L. DRAWBRIDGE, M.A. (Hon,
Org. Seo, Christian Evidence Society).
jjit'e book is on? of tbemoai crushing replies to an anti-Christian-^rguiaept
java seep for » tong lima.”~jRv. JD». St. CtofeTiada’J, lata Long Lacuires
Religi&ns, in The Rtcord,
felSTIANITY AND ITS
r OPPONENTS
r Keriorisis Report* of Tweftw Leetvras given to Sp»ptiC3y
, together With Questioni, Answers, and ©iw«j.sienjh
...
2s, fid, net.
'
iTHIC CHRISTS AND
THE TRUE
3y Rev. Dr. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, M. A.
Is. net, doth ; 84. net, paper,
Jrsft’wM,—" This is a wuable contribution to Christian apologetics.”
LIGIOUS BELIEFS OF
| SCIENTISTS
2
2*. fid. net.
Cloth boards, pp.- |66.
te insiry hitherto unpublished tetters from great scientists effec*
if proving the theory that men of -.pienbe urn Rs religious than
By A. H, TABRUM.
ion by Rev. C. L. DRAWBRIDGE, M.A. (Chairman of the
North, London Christian Evidence League).
testimony is overwhehntng pii the cat, fra' point that there
sary antagonism between Scsofce and Keligton-.”
;
TER & LONGHURST, 9 Paternoster Row, 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
Mythic Christs and the true : a criticism of some modern theories
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tisdall, W. St Clair
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: vi,93, [3] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Annotations in pencil. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Published for the North London Christian Evidence League. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Hunter and Longhurst
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1909
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N638
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Mythic Christs and the true : a criticism of some modern theories), 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
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ-Rationalistic Interpretations
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/76d07319c50b94fdb1eeefa65fd4193d.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=Qs-%7Eierw5rvUrCna57ihFBuSItXTRIOGz-68PvjSGM2lskHaYqO2qs2tgB-lCUnISeE-DFVRybxztJlzyM8RjSuDR%7ESCMYwNQvm9k7A1gU2H29i07jGRSEw%7EIIn4ooGKC0JasxO9bbCpbkS0UZWVen14r33N1SceepGZ6%7ElBL5fSVgPsTQiRd6RwTGTZHLIAemqVD4BnG2NxTI-a9WwX50o%7EJYBypD3IfLSXSbQHqKA6Zx5jbLzhBBzD%7Eru95zBDBtq7OVo1MUmFGT-DNPEHrgGTKrwrN6LVMr2iFomgn0yYghTq8Jr0hI56sg7eHmeP2156Q555UZ8gtYnfV9gnJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
5a09cf6832cf6349b0d74cfaf2f32980
PDF Text
Text
STRAUSS’S NEW WORK ON THE LIFE OF JESUS.
Das Leben Jesu, fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet. (The
Life of Jesus, adapted to the German People.) von
David Friedrich Strauss. Leipzig : F. A. Brockhaus.
1864.
Nearly thirty years have now elapsed since a “ Life of
Jesus” by David Frederic Strauss made its first appearance.
We were at that time in Germany, and remember well the
startling effect that it produced. There were not indeed
wanting men who at once perceived, that the views which
it set forth with such uncompromising fearlessness, were a
natural consequence of principles of criticism which had
been for a long time partially and perhaps unsuspectingly
applied. But even those who were familiar with such prin
ciples and ’freely recognized them in relation to insulated
points of the gospel history, had never fully realized to
themselves the results with which they were pregnant, and
were filled with a sort of terror when they saw all their
possible applications gathered to a focus and urged home
with remorseless consequentiality to their legitimate issue.
Of replies to this alarming book there was no lack; but
none of them, not even that of Neander, were felt to have
effectually repelled the serious blow which it aimed at the
old traditional trust in the strictly historical character of the
evangelical narratives. Every ensuing contribution to the
. criticism of the New Testament which bore on it the stamp
of solid learning and thorough honesty, though it might
approach the subject from another point of view, moved in
the same direction, and tended rather to confirm than to
weaken the scepticism raised by Strauss. This was espe
cially true of the Tubingen school of theology. The imme
diate effect' was a general unsettling of opinion and a
pervading sense of uneasiness. It was impossible for things
to remain as they were. The old rationalism, which, assu
ming the impossibility of miracle, had attempted to unite
with this negative theory a literal acceptance of the facts
recorded in the Gospels, had exhausted'its resources, and
was shewn by the unanswerable logic of Strauss to be more
untenable and absurd than the simple, childlike faith which
it had undertaken to replace. Only one of two courses now
A
�2
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
remained: either to fall hack into broad, self-consistent
orthodoxy, which took things as they were written with
unquestioning credulity; or else to go boldly forward in the
path opened by Strauss and Baur, and develop the results
which they had established, with courageous honesty into
all their consequences. A perfect trust in truth and fearless
ness of the world, such as few men possess, was indispensable
to the adoption of the latter alternative. It was a trial of
the spirits, and not many were equal to it.
From the storm of reproach and execration which assailed
him on all sides, Strauss took shelter in studious privacy ;
and for many years, finding little encouragement to the
prosecution of theological research, busied himself with pur
suits of another though still kindred character, which bore
valuable fruit in his biographies of Ulrich von Hutten and
Reimarus. Meantime the world moved on, however theolo
gians might wish to be stationary. The events of 1848 and
1849 had powerfully roused the popular mind of Germany;
and the outbreak of the almost contemporary movements
of the German Catholics on one hand, and of the Protestant
Friends of Light on the other, shewed what a craving there
was in all quarters for release from ecclesiastical bondage
and freer religious development. Strauss from his retreat
marked these ominous phenomena with thoughtful and not
irreverent eye. Cautious and temperate in his political
views, he felt with growing conviction, what he has so
strongly expressed in the preface to his present work—that
the country of the Reformation can only become politically
free, to the extent that it has wrought out for itself a
spiritual, religious and moral freedom.
*
He discerned the
risk to which many minds were exposed from their inability
to draw a clear line of separation between the permanent
and the perishable in Christianity—of renouncing the spi
ritual substance with the historical form—or at least of
oscillating continually between a wild unbelief and a spas
modic piety.-f- The result was a firm persuasion that it
was a duty to come to the relief of this morbid condition of
the popular mind. He had convinced himself that, owing
* “Wir Deutsche konnen politisch nur in dem Masse frei werden, als wir
uns geistig, religios und sittlich frei gemacht haben.”—Vorrede, xx.
+ Ibid, xviii.
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
3
to the wide diffusion of education, the people of Germany
were prepared for the profitable entertainment of many
questions, which might have been justly thought to be
prematurely agitated a quarter of a century before. He had
gained the experience, which has been constantly that of
other teachers of religion,—that on spiritual topics where
the premisses lie within every human consciousness, there
is often a readier perception of deep, fundamental truth in
simple and earnest men of the lowest class, than is to be
found among their superiors in social position, whose minds
are clouded by conventional prejudices, and not seldom dark
ened by the interposition of an useless mass of artificial
book-learning between their inner vision and the eternal
realities of the universe. In this purpose of bringing his
views before the general public, he was encouraged by the
warm sympathy of his brother, who, though himself a manu
facturer, took a strong and intelligent interest in the theolo
gical controversies of the time, and was regarded by Strauss
as no unfitting type of the middle-class intellect of Germany,
fully competent to decide on the main points at issue be
tween the conservative and the progressive schools. Before
the publication of the present work, Renan's Vie de Jesus
appeared in France. The reception it met with furnished
additional proof, that the time had come when the ancient
limits of learned insulation might be broken through, and
an appeal be safely made to the popular mind and heart.
Beyond this general appeal from the verdict of a craft to
the judgment of the world, the works of Renan and Strauss
have little in common.
*
Strauss’s first-work was intended immediately for theolo
gians. Some wished at the time that, like Bretschneider’s
Probabilia, it had veiled its heresies in Latin. From the
task that it proposed to itself, it was essentially analytic
and destructive, and it seemed to leave behind it a very
negative result. It took the whole mass of gospel narra
tives as it found them, and subjecting them to the severest
* In one point they touchingly agree—in the dedications prefixed to each ;
one to the memory of a beloved sister, the other to that of a brother. In both
we painfully miss the distinct recognition of a hope, which to us seems the only
availing consolation in such cases. Yet both are affectionate in tone, and, we
do not doubt, are genuine utterances of the heart—each strongly marked by
the idiosyncrasy of character and race—that of Strauss, grave and earnest; that
of Renan, airy and sentimental.
A 2
�4
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
critical test, it affirmed that it had succeeded in dissolving
much that had been received as history, into legend and
even into myth, of which the source could often be traced,
and of which the aim was obvious. Like the lines of ap
proach drawn round a beleaguered city, the hostile move
ment was from the circumference towards the centre—
constantly advancing further and further, and breaking
down one defence after another, till at last it seemed doubt
ful whether the inmost citadel itself would not be. stormed
and reduced to a ruin. There was something almost ap
palling in the imperturbable coolness and apparent reck
lessness of consequences with which Strauss pursued his
work. But it was a work which had to be done. It was
desirable to test the utmost force of criticism on the histo
rical frame-work of Christianity. Dissent as we may from
the author’s conclusion, and even in cases where he leaves
no way to any definite conclusion at all, it is impossible
not to admire, in many sections of the book, the remarkable
acuteness and skill with which a number of widely dis
persed and scarcely appreciable, indications are combined to
throw light on the possible origin of a particular narrative.
Though the general theory of Strauss, in the unqualified
largeness of its earliest enunciation, must doubtless undergo
important limitations, yet his first work will ever retain a
high value, as opening the source from which many ele
ments have been supplied to the present texture of the
gospel history, and furnishing the student with a model of
thorough critical investigation.
His new work has been written with quite another view. It
is in no sense a revised edition of the first. If the object of
the former was to decompose a multifarious whole into its
constituent parts, the main design of the present volume is to
reconstruct, by gathering up the residuary facts into a solid
nucleus, and then attempting to explain how a mythic atmo
sphere has formed around it. It reverses the order of the
foregoing process. It advances from the centre towards the
circumference, making good its ground as it proceeds—striv
ing to convey as distinct an impression of the origin and
founder of Christianity as facts now ascertainable permit,
and maintaining with calm earnestness throughout, that no
results of historical criticism can affect the certainty of those
eternal truths, or impair the influence of that beautiful life,
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
5
which make the gospel what it is—a possession for ever to
mankind. This is evidently the aim of the hook. No
candid reader can dispute it. There are occasions on which
we think he has overstrained his theory. We cannot accept
all his assumptions without material qualification; and his
own premisses appear to us to yield more positive and con
solatory conclusions than he has himself drawn from them.
But the volume before us, with all its deficiencies, is the
clear expression of an honest, an earnest, and, we will add,
a noble mind—a mind which has sought truth for its own
sake, though on some vital points we feel strongly that it
has missed it, and which has at least proved its own since
rity by cheerfully paying the penalty which truth’s loyal
service too constantly incurs. Strauss, in his preface, does
not conceal his anxiety that his two works, as having dif
ferent objects, should be kept perfectly distinct; and he
has even left directions in his will, that in case a new edi
tion of his former work should be called for, it should be
faithfully reprinted, without any reference to the present
volume, from the first edition, with only a few corrections
from the fourth.
*
The limits to which we are restricted, will prevent us
from giving more than a summary outline of the plan and
contents of this learned and suggestive work. After a rapid
survey of successive attempts to write a “ Life of Jesus”—
beginning with Hess near a century ago, and terminating
with Renan and Keimf—Strauss proceeds to determine the
criteria of authenticity, and to inquire how far they are
satisfied by any extant testimony to the Gospels. He de
cides, that in their present form they furnish no evidence
at first hand. They are the embodiment of a cumulative
tradition, carrying down with it some written memorials of
particular discourses and transactions from a very early
date. He shews how credulous and uncritical were the
earliest witnesses to the books that form our actual canon
* Vorrede, xiii.
+ Die Meftschliche Entwickelung Jesu Christi (The Human Development of
Jesus Christ), a very interesting inaugural address on accepting the chair of
Theology at .Zurich, December 17, 1860 ; much commended by Strauss, and
furnishing, in the warm devotional sentiment with which it envelopes the
person of Christ, a not unwelcome relief from the somewhat chilling influence
of his own more negative views.
•
�6
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
—Irenaeus and Tertullian, and even the more learned and
philosophical Origen and Eusebius. Fidelity to simple fact,
even after the desire to harmonize the four evangelists had
awakened something like a critical spirit, was constantly
overpowered in their minds by dogmatic or practical consi
derations—by the wish to extract a moral or establish a con
clusion. This was the spirit of their age.' They were conscious
of no wrong in yielding to it. The examination of Papias’s
account of the origin of Matthew’s and Mark’s Gospels,
proves that the works referred to by him could not have been
identical with those which we now possess under the same
names. Indeed, the preposition rara—according to—hardly
allows direct authorship. In like manner the indication in
Luke’s preface of many contemporary records of Christ’s
ministry, and the evident desire which both the Gospel and
the Acts betray, of reconciling the opposite tendencies of
the Jewish and the Pauline schools, presuppose a later
period for the composition of both those books than is re
concilable with their having proceeded in their present form
from a companion of the apostle Paul. Contrary to the
opinion which he once held, Strauss has yielded to the
arguments of Baur, and is now convinced that the apostle
John cannot have been the author of the fourth GospeL
He ascribes the tenacity with which Schleiermacher and
some other eminent men have clung to the opposite view,
rather to sentiment than to critical proof, and thinks it had
its source in strong reaction against the old rationalism
■which was supposed to find its chief support in the Synop
tical Gospels. Only in the Epistles of Paul, and in the
Apocalypse which he regards as the work of the apostle
John, does Strauss recognize any works of direct apostolic
origin in our present canon. Having upset the earlier dates
which the old apologists had attempted to fix, he does not
pretend to find any more definite lower down. We gather
from the general tenor of his criticism, that he supposes our
four Gospels to have assumed their present form some time
in the earlier part of the second century. With the notions
now prevalent in the Christian world, this may appear dis
tressingly vague. But can those who complain, satisfacto
rily establish anything more certain? We want evidence,
not declamation. When we consider how these narratives
have been composed, of what materials they consist, through
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
7
what changes of form they have passed, how gradually they
have in all probability been accumulated, and how little
anything like formal publication, in our sense of the word,
can be predicated of them, till their authoritative recogni
tion by the Catholic Church towards the close of the second
century—it is obvious that the assignment of a precise date
to the authorship of any one of them, is altogether out of
the question. By taking this broad though vague ground,
from which there is as yet no final verdict of criticism to
warn him off, Strauss gains time and space for that free
development of tradition and its consequences, in which he
finds a natural solution of many perplexing enigmas in the
gospel history. Possibly he may carry his theory too far
in this direction, as he certainly on some points overstrains
its application ; but he is at least more self-consistent than
Ewald, who agreeing to the full with Strauss in an absolute
renunciation of the miraculous, cuts off by his limitation of
the date of the Gospels, especially the Gospel of John, all
possibility of accounting without violence for its introduction
into the narrative of the New Testament
*
Notwithstand
ing this free treatment of the written documents of Chris
tianity, Strauss distinctly admits that a full and living
stream of tradition poured itself into them, which bore along
with it the new spirit of Christ,—vivid impressions of the
most salient features of his personality, and authentic records
of his most remarkable words and acts—and with such a
penetrating and diffusive power, wherever it spread, that it
“ created a soul,” to use a fine expression of Milton’s, “ under
the ribs of death,” and deposited far and wide over the ex
hausted soil of heathenism the elements of a higher faith
and a nobler life. We have often thought we could trace
a wonderful providence in the apparently defective medium
through which Christ has been revealed to us;—not set
* Most unnecessarily, on more occasions than one, Strauss seems to us to
have explained away a very probable fact into the exposition of a mere idea.
Can anything be more fanciful than his interpretation of Luke’s statement, that
Jesus, in consequence of the unbelief of his own kindred, transferred his resi
dence from Nazareth to Capernaum, where he met with a more cordial reception
—as a symbolical announcement of the rejection of Christianity by the Jews,,
and its acceptance by the heathen ? (p. 121). There is to us also something
equally unreal in his comparison of the Sermon on the Mount with the Sinaitic
legislation (p. 124), though this may have been suggested to him by his strong
persuasion that, according to the Messianic conceptions of that age, the Christ
was to be a second Moses.
�8
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
forth in clear and definite outline, with every feature exactly
delineated, and every light and shade filled up—a present
ment which would have exhausted by at once satisfying
the imagination,—but disclosed to us in transient glimpses
of ineffable sweetness and surpassing majesty, which require
the co-operation of our own highest thought to interpret
and complete them, and make the Christ in whom is our
deepest trust, the creation in part of God’s own spirit within
us. What Christ planted in the world, was not a dogma
nor a form, but a living word, which had its root in his own
life, and carried with it his own spirit. It propagated itself
under God’s blessing, but through human agencies, over all
the earth, imbibing a flavour from the various soils which
nourished it, and taking a new colour from changing skies.
We mark its earliest growth in the Galilean records of
Matthew. We observe how its vital juices sprout into lux
uriant tendrils and put forth leaves and blossoms in Paul
and Luke.. We see it bending with purple clusters in
John. There is a sense in which the fourth Gospel, while
deeply tinged with the ideas of the time, may still be said
to present us with the most genuine expression of the spirit
of Christ, because it exhibits the highest point of organic
development within the New Testament; though it may
not have been written by the apostle whose name it bears,
and though many of its contents may not correspond to
historical fact.
“The Johannean Gospel,” writes Strauss (p. 143), “with its
image of Christ, attracts more sympathy from the present gene
ration than the Synoptical with theirs. These, written out from
the quiet heart of undoubting faith in the primitive society (for,
in their conception of the person and being of Christ, there is
comparatively little difference between the liberal Judaism of the
first, and the tempered Paulinism of the third Gospel), found a
natural response in the equally sure and quiet trust of the cen
turies of faith. The former, with its restless striving to recon
cile a, new idea with the existing tradition—to represent as an
objective faith, what it grasped subjectively as certain truth—
must be better suited to the temper of a time, whose faith is no
longer a tranquil possession, but an incessant struggle, and that
would fain believe more than it yet properly can. In reference
to the impression which this side of its influence makes on our
present Christianity, we might call the Gospel of John, the
romantic Gospel, though in itself, it is anything but a romantic
�Strauss’s New Work on the Life of Jesus.
9
*
production. The unrest, the intense sensitiveness, which in the
believer of to-day result from his effort, amid the new views
which irresistibly force themselves on him, still to keep firm hold
of his ancient faith—proceeded, on the contrary, in the evangel
ist, from his endeavouring to raise the old tradition to the height
of his new ideas, and mould it into accordance with them; but
the restlessness and the effort, the flickering before the eye, the
wavering in the outline of the image so produced, is on both
sides the very same ; and hence it is precisely towards this Gospel
that the modern Christian feels himself especially drawn. The
Johannean Christ, who in his self-delineations continually, as it
were, overdoes himself, is the counterpart of the modern believer,
who to be a believer must be ever in like manner overdoing him
self. The Johannean miracles, which are resolved into spiritual
signs, and yet at the same time exhibit the extreme form of out
ward miracle, which are reported and attested in every way, and
yet are not to be regarded as the true ground of faith—are mira
cles and yet no miracles ; people ought to believe them, and yet
believe without them : just as this half-hearted age seeks to do,
which wears itself out in contradictions, and is too worn and
spiritless to attain to clear insight and decisive speech in reli
gious things.”
There is much truth' in these words, but not the whole
truth. They do not do full justice to the very case which
they so forcibly put. No doubt we have in the fourth Gospel
a vivid expression of the endeavour to reconcile the simple,
popular trusts which are transmitted to us in the three
first, with a philosophic conception of God’s relation to the
universe which at that time pervaded with its subtle influ
ence the whole upper region of thought throughout the
Greco-Roman world. But it was not all unrest; it was not
interminable struggle. In those wonderful chapters, from
the 13th to the 17th, which are the highest utterance of
the Johannean Gospel, the problem has its solution. In
love and trust, in oneness of affection and endeavour with
the omnipresent God, in self-surrender to the Parent Mind
through the heart’s deep sympathy with the holiest human
manifestation of filial obedience—the troubled spirit finds
at last the rest and peace for which it has yearned. And so
it will be in the final issue of this agitated and questioning
* The allusion is to the distinction between the classical and the romantic
schools, familiar to all who are acquainted with the history of German litera
ture in the early part of the present century.
�10
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
age of ours. When the battle between science and faith,
between historical traditions and the religion of the in Tier
consciousness, has been fought out, and their mutual rela
tionship has been adjusted ; the spirit of Christ will survive
these controversies of the intellect, and disengaged at length
from artificial obstructions and gratuitous difficulties, will
descend with all its power into the human soul, and fill it
with a profounder faith and a holier love.
*
The somewhat tentative character of Strauss’s first book
and its large application of the mythic principle, that on
the image of Christ, as presented to us in the Gospels, some
of the most striking features had been impressed by the
Messianic assumptions of the primitive Church,—left on the
reader’s mind a painful doubt whether the author recognized
any historical Christ at all, and whether what we had been
accustomed to accept as such, was not to a large extent a
product of the imaginative enthusiasm of the first believers ;
or, to put it in the briefest form, whether, instead of Christ’s
having created the Church, the Church had not rather created
Christ. The supposition, conceived in this broad, unquali
fied way, is so preposterous that it furnished those who
were eager to find in the work not what it might contain
of truth, but where it could be most effectively assailed, a
ready and obvious point of attack. It is only justice to
Strauss to say, that his mature thoughts embodied in the
present volume, afford no ground for imputing to him so
wild an extravagance. He affirms most distinctly not only
the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth, but the won
derful effect of his personality in introducing the greatest
spiritual revolution in the history of the human race. What
he contends for is simply this : that the image of that per
sonality has not been conveyed to us through perfectly
transparent media ; and that though the features are suffi
ciently distinct to enable us to verify the individual, they
have been blended in their transmission with the deep sub
jective influence of the recording mind. Before we condemn
this view, we must first shew that with a thoroughly honest
criticism we are able to escape it. That Jesus was born
* How searching are these words of the great Augustine! “Vae animae
audaci, quae speravit si a te recessisset, se aliquid melius habituram. Versa et
reversa in tergum et in latera et in ventrem, et dura sunt omnia. Tu Solus
requies.”—Confess. Lib. vi. c. 16.
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
11
and bred of humble parentage in Nazareth of Galilee ; that
he was a hearer of John, and received baptism at his hands ;
that he commenced the career of an independent religious
reformer in Galilee, sharing in the general Messianic ex
pectations of his time ; that he penetrated to the spiritual
substance of the law, and believed that in the coming age
its outward form would be abolished for ever; that he
attached followers to himself from his own rank in life,
and preached to multitudes repentance and faith, awaken
ing into consciousness the higher life that was slumbering
in them ; that he waged an unsparing war with the formal
ism and hypocrisy of the professed guides and instructors
of the people, and gave his interest and sympathy in pre
ference to publicans and sinners; that the essence of his
teachings is condensed in the Sermon on the Mount, in
innumerable parables, and in occasional words that escaped
from the fulness of his inmost spiritual being in varied inter
course with the world,—all summed up in the two great com
mandments of love to God and love to man, of which his
whole life was a living impersonation ; that, though he
foresaw the fate which awaited him from direct encounter
with an irritated and malignant priesthood at Jerusalem,
this did not deter him from resolutely pursuing his pro
phetic career till its close ; that, betrayed by one of his own
followers, he fell into the hands of his enemies, and was
executed ignominiously by the Boman authorities on the
cross ; that notwithstanding the dismay and the dispersion
which this event immediately produced among his disciples,
they nevertheless after a season recovered their confidence
and hope, and firmly believed in his resurrection from the
dead and his continued presence and visitation from the
heavenly world;—these are facts which Strauss clearly
recognizes as the historic frame-work of the evangelical
narrative, and as the basis of his further speculations re
specting their accompaniments. He thinks that in conse
quence of being so far above the ideas of his age and coun
try, Jesus has been often misunderstood by those who heard
him ; and that we are therefore justified in interpreting the
general tenor of his instructions by the highest and most
spiritual utterances recorded of him ; that, for instance, we
have probably a truer reflection of his spirit in some of the
parables peculiar to the Pauline Gospel of Luke than in
�12
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
others which occur in Matthew’s, and hear evident marks
of the Judaic narrowness of its original materials. He
believes that we can trace a spiritual growth in the mind
of Jesus, and that the consciousness of his Messianic mission did not take possession of him all at once,—that it first
becomes distinctly conspicuous about the time of the trans
figuration. Having once acquired the conviction that he
had been chosen by God to fulfil the Messianic work, it
was only a natural consequence that Jesus should apply to
himself, and expect to find realized in himself as God’s
instrument for a great purpose, the several predicates that
were attached by universal belief to his office. In this part
of his life, however, it is especially difficult to disentangle
what he may actually have said about himself, from the
stronger and ampler language respecting the Messiah then
current among the Jews, which later faith assumed that he
must have used, and therefore unhesitatingly applied to him.
Enough—he was profoundly sincere in his conviction, cou
rageous and ready for self-sacrifice in carrying it out; and
if the admission implies that there was a certain tinge of
enthusiasm in his character, he possessed this quality in
common with some of the purest and noblest spirits that
have adorned the human race; nor is it in any wise incom
patible with a providential vocation and a divine life. Such
we gather to be Strauss’s impression of the historical Jesus.
But in this history there are two elements—one which we
have just described, probable in itself and consistent with
the known laws of matter and mind ; another, intermingled
with it, which transcends those laws and stands out as an
exceptional case in the history of the world. Strauss’s
theory of the universe (of which we shall have to say a
word or two by and by) precludes him from admitting the
possibility under any imaginable circumstances of such
occurrences as would constitute the latter element. The
problem, therefore, which he has to solve, is to account for
the copious infusion of this element into every part of a
history which contains so much of the highest truth and
has left so profound an impression on the subsequent course
of human affairs. His explanation is the following: that
assuming the traditional facts of Christ’s actual life as their
basis, it was the object, first of the preachers of the gospel,
and afterwards of those who reduced our earliest records t(
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
13
writing, to establish on that basis a conclusive argument
that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ or expected Messiah,
the Son of David, the second Moses, the Son of God; and
that the working of this strong purpose, blended with intense
conviction, on the traditional materials subjected to it in a
mental atmosphere already deeply charged with foregone
conclusions, evolved more and more, as the actual facts re
ceded into further distance, the mythical halo which has
invested the whole narrative with a supernatural character.
If Jesus were the Messiah, then all the passages of the Old
Testament which had a Messianic import, and all the ex
pectations to which the current interpretations of them had
given rise, must have had their fulfilment in his person
and his life; and this assumption, ever present to the mind
of the evangelists, moulded unconsciously the loose and
fluctuating mass of oral tradition into the form in which
we now possess it, and mingled with it elements that had
their source in the fervid faith of the believing mind. This
is what has been called the mythic theory of Strauss. The
old rationalistic school, including Eichhorn and Paulus and
not wholly excluding Schleiermacher himself, disbelieved
equally with Strauss the possibility of the strictly miracu
lous ; but they attempted by various expedients to explain
it away from a narrative which they accepted in the main
as historical. Strauss saw the futility of this method, and
the violence which it did to the plainest rules of exegesis;
but he attained the same object of accounting for the intro
duction of the miraculous, by carrying down the Gospels
to a later date, and ascribing it to the imperceptible growth
of tradition.
It becomes necessary here, for the sake of the English
reader, to define a little more exactly the idea conveyed by
the word myth, when used in this sense. Heyne was one
of the first who shewed that the myth was a necessary form
of thought in the earlier stages of human development.
While language is yet imperfectly furnished with abstract
terms, and the imaginative are ascendant over the reasoning
faculties, ideas struggling for utterance clothe themselves
in an objective shape and find expression in narrative and
personification. Heyne made a distinction between conscious
and unconscious fiction; and regarded the latter alone as
properly a myth. In this sense a myth has been called the
�i4
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
spontaneous expression in a historical form of the indwelling
idea of a community. Since Heyne’s time the subject has
been more scientifically developed by George in his essay
on “ Myth and Legend.”* In legend, according to him, there
is always at bottom some fact, however much it may have
been subsequently overgrown by the wild offshoots of the
imagination. A myth, on the contrary, fills up with its own
creations from the first—imagining what must have been—
the absolute vacancy of the past. But in the proper myth,
as in the proper legend, according to this interpretation of
them, whatever fiction they may involve is unconscious, is
unintentional. With the progress of the intellect, however,
and a clearer perception of the distinction between a fact
and an idea, this primeval unconsciousness becomes no
longer possible. Fiction is still practised, but it now justi
fies itself by its intention, that of ineulcating a moral or
enforcing a truth. The literary conscience of antiquity was
much laxer in this respect than our own. The line between
fiction and history was far less distinctly recognized. If a
good end could be served, no hesitation was felt in assum
ing a false name to recommend a work, and in arbitrarily
combining and interpolating the actual facts of history to 1
bring out more effectually the impression intended to be
produced. The centuries preceding and following the birth
of Christ, abounded in works of this description. It was
almost a characteristic of the age. The late F. C. Baur was
the first theologian of standing and authority who ventured
boldly to assert the occurrence of this practice within the
limits of the New Testament, as an element towards the
solution of the complicated question of the relative credi
bility of the evangelists. It was with him an unavoidable
consequence of the conclusions at which he had arrived
respecting the origin and composition of the fourth Gospel.
Indeed his clear and forcible reasonings reduce us to this
dilemma ; we must either admit the authenticity and trust
worthiness of John, in which case the Synoptics fall at once
in value, as shewn to be constantly in error; or else, assum
ing the three first Gospels to exhibit the primitive Pales* Mythus und Saga: Ver such einer wissenschaftlichen Entwickelung dieser
Begriffe und ihrer Verhaltnisses zurn christlichen Glauben. Berlin, 1837..
Legend is an inadequate, and in reference to its etymology, an inaccurate ren
dering of Saga, for which there is no exact equivalent in English.
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
15
tinian tradition and John to have used their materials, we
must allow that he has handled them, in many instances
at least, with a freedom that deprives them of all proper
historical character. No third course seems possible. Strauss
has embraced apparently in their whole extent the views of
Baur on this subject. He describes the Johannean Gospel
as another Apocalypse, projecting its images not, like that
of the apostle whose name it has assumed, on the thunder
clouds of the future, but on the quiet wall of the past
(p. 156). He has been compelled, too, under the same in
fluence, to use the word myth in a much wider sense than
that to which it had been restricted by Heyne and George,
including conscious as well as unconscious fiction. In its
application to the evangelical narratives, he considers the
only distinction of importance to lie between the historical
and the ideal, from whatever source the latter may proceed.
“In this new form of the Life of Jesus, I have,” he says,
“ chiefly in pursuance of the indications of Baur, allowed more
scope than formerly to the supposition of conscious and inten
tional fiction; but I have not on that account thought it neces
sary to employ another term. Rather in reply to the question,
whether even the conscious fictions of an individual can properly
be called myths, I must, even after all that has been written on
the subject, still say : by all means, so far as they have found
credence, and passed into the tradition of a people or a religious
party; for this is at the same time a proof that they were fash
ioned by their author not simply at the instance of his particular
fancy, but in harmony with the consciousness of numbers. Every
unhistorical narrative, however it may have arisen, in which a
religious community finds an essential portion of the holy foun
dation on which it rests, inasmuch as it is an absolute expression
of the feelings and conceptions which constitute it what it is, is
a myth ; and if Greek mythology is concerned in separating from
this wider definition of myth, a narrower one which excludes
the idea of conscious fiction, critical, on the other hand, as
contrasted with orthodox theology, has an interest in embracing
under the general conception of myth, all those evangelical nar
ratives to which it assigns a purely ideal significance.”—P. 159.
The mythic principle so understood Strauss applies to
the explanation of the second of the two elements which
we have described as entering into the composition of the
Gospels. The earliest, evangelists preached and wrote to
shew that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ; and the course
�16
Strauss's New Worh on the Life of Jesus.
of their argument, with the kind of proofs on which they
chiefly insisted to sustain it, was powerfully influenced by
the conception through which they habitually realized to
themselves the Messianic character and office—whether as
the Son of David, the Son of God or the Incarnate Word.
The devout Jew of that age firmly believed that the Messi
anic era was at hand. His exalted faith threw its own
glowing imagery on the sacred pages of the law and the
prophets; so that wherever he opened them, whether he
lighted on history or poetry or precept, the mystic interpre
tation in which he had been trained, enabled him to discern
some foreshadowing of him that was to come. The Chris
tian had convinced himself that he was already come in
Jesus ; and consequently all those passages of the ancient
Scripture, in which "he had been accustomed to find the
clearest indications of the future deliverer of Israel and
mankind, he assumed without doubting, as God was true,
must have their fulfilment in his person and life. What
men are persuaded they must see, we know as a rule that
they will see, even when present appearances are against
them; but when this enthusiastic conviction operates not
on contemporary facts, but on a continually receding tradi
tion, it inevitably overpowers the objective by the subjec
tive, and envelopes the history of the past in a hazy atmo
sphere of imaginative feeling. Without adopting Strauss’s
theory in all its details, and strongly questioning some of
his assumptions, truth nevertheless compels us to admit,
that of many statements in the Gospels, after thoroughly
analyzing and comparing them, the origin and character are
best explained on the supposition that this mythic principle
was largely concerned in producing them.
This side of the history of Jesus, Strauss has brought out
in a series of mythic groups, in each of which he endeavours
to discover the formative idea which gave birth to it; in
other words, what Messianic assumption has invested the
simple historical nucleus with a character of its own. In
the first of these mythic groups relating to the birth of
Jesus and the communication of his supernatural powers,
three views are clearly traceable which must have origi
nated in different conceptions, and are incapable of perfect
reconcilement with each other, though they are blended to
some extent in our existing Gospels. We have first the
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
17
account of the. descent of the Spirit at his baptism, which
is probably the oldest view ; then two narratives, in Mat
thew and in Luke, of his conception by a virgin under
divine influence, which are inconsistent with each other;
and lastly, the doctrine of the word made flesh in John,
who omits the genealogies, and has no allusion to Christ’s
having come into the world in any other than the ordinary
way. His birth at Bethlehem, with the miraculous accom
paniments of the star and the heavenly host, and the adora
tion of the magi and the shepherds,—the murderous jealousy
of Herod, the flight into Egypt, and the presentation in the
Temple,—incidents which it is utterly impossible to weave
together into a self-consistent narrative, and which, strange
and startling as they were, do not appear to have exercised
the slightest effect on thirty ensuing years of tranquil ob
scurity,—we can hardly doubt were assumed to have
occurred, because certain passages referring to the Messi
anic advent in the Old Testament were believed to require
them, and because they were such as antiquity, Jewish and
heathen, constantly associated with the entrance of great
men into the world. Strauss has instituted a parallelism
between the life of Moses and that of Jesus which is to us
novel, and which we think he has somewhat overstrained.
Both, however, were deliverers; both effected the emanci
pation of their people through sore trials and temptations ;
and both, according to the popular belief, ran a risk of
perishing in infancy. This last incident often occurs in
the legendary memorials of the heroes of the world. It is
told of Augustus by his freedman Julius Marathus, in the
broad daylight of Roman civilization, and in an age contem
porary with Christ.
*
The relations of Jesus with the Bap* Suetonius, Octavianus c. 94. It had been announced a few months before
the birth of Augustus, that a citizen of Velitraa (to which his family belonged)
should become the ruler of the world ; whereupon the Senate being alarmed,
issued a decree that no child bom in that year should be reared. We had
marked this passage some time ago as forming a parallel to the story of the
murder of the innocents, and noticed, what Strauss has omitted to mention—
that the language used is identical with that in which Suetonius in another
part of his book, and Tacitus in his History, describe the Messianic expecta
tion of the Jews. The following is the prophecy about Augustus: “ Velitris,
antiquitus tactfl, de coelo parte muri, responsum est, ejus oppidi civern quundoque rerum potiturum.'’ Of the Jewish belief Suetonius thus writes : “Esse
in fatis, ut eo tempore, Judced profecti rerum potirentur” (Vespas. c. 4); and
Tacitus in the very same words: “Profectique Judaa rerum potirentur”
(Hist. v. 13).
B
�18
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
tist and with his earliest followers have probably, according
to Strauss, been tinged in the later conceptions of them
with something of a mythic hue. The acknowledgment of
his superiority by the former, could not have been so clear
and decided from the first as is represented ; otherwise the
disciples of the Baptist would not have continued to form
a separate sect, nor would Christ’s own ministry have first
taken independent ground when the Baptist had been
silenced by being cast into prison. With regard to his dis
ciples, Christ is described as summoning them at once, and
the call (to give a greater air of authority to his words) as
having been immediately obeyed. In both cases, probably,
the effect was gradual. The result only is given. What
had preceded it is passed over. The development of these
two relationships—the first with his forerunner, the second
with his followers—forms the subject of two separate mythic
groups in this part of Strauss’s exposition of the life of
Jesus. Less difficulty will generally be felt in accepting
the accounts of the temptation and the transfiguration as
mythical; for few thoughtful theologians of any school can
now for a long time past have seriously treated them as
historical. A conflict with the Evil One is the fundamental
idea pervading the whole ministry of Christ; and a sym
bolical representation of it would form a natural introduc
tion to the history of his public life. So, again, Moses and
Elias had prepared the way for the gospel; and besides the
current belief that the old prophets would reappear in the
days of the Messiah, it was a fitting consecration of the last
and most trying period of his ministry, when death was
awaiting him and all worldly hopes were about to be extin
guished in the blood of the cross, that his great predecessors
should be seen to be associated with him in glory, and that
the voice from heaven should once more be heard pronounc
ing him the Beloved Son. In these transactions we have
two other mythic groups. It is unnecessary to go through
the entire series. We would simply remark, that in those
passages of the life of Jesus which record the exertion of
miraculous power, the theory of the author assumes its
strongest expression and most uncompromising application.
Strauss’s philosophical system precludes his recognizing
the strictly miraculous in any sense. Its utter impossibility
is an assumption which he carries with him ab initio to the
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
19
criticism of the evangelical narrative; and it is an assump
tion so deeply rooted in his first principles of belief, that no
accumulation of outward testimony could overcome it, any
more than it could make him accept a logical contradiction.
His theory, therefore, leaves him no alternative but to eli
minate the miraculous from the history as something neces
sarily untrue. He starts from this premiss; and all his
reasonings are in harmony with it. His book is self-con
sistent throughout. With him the phenomenal universe is
an ultimate fact, carrying its cause and principle within
itself. There is nothing, and we can know nothing, beyond
it. He would not, of course, deny that there may hereafter
be an evolution of new and unexpected results from laws
and agencies already in operation; but those laws and
agencies, once clearly ascertained, themselves furnish, in his
view, the limit to any further development of phenomena
that can be conceived. Any power not already contained
in the phenomenal, that could control its course and infuse
a new element of life into the growth of the universe, he
would disown as a gratuitous assumption. His belief, if
we understand him correctly, is limited to the phenomenal
alone, and does not extend to any power extraneous and
antecedent to the phenomenal.
Every theory of the universe must start from some
assumption : the question is, whether the assumption which
admits or that which excludes benevolent intelligence and
righteous will as the root and sustaining principle of the
universe, is most in accordance with the only analogies that
can guide us in a matter so entirely beyond our experience,
and best satisfies the instinctive belief, the spontaneous trust,
the devout yearning which, if the voice of our collective
humanity be not the utterance of a falsehood, must indicate
some corresponding object in reality. It is not our intention
to argue this question with Strauss. It is one too vast and
deep to be discussed within the limits of the present paper,
and belongs in fact rather to philosophy than to theology.
We notice it here only to mark with distinctness the point
where our own views diverge widely from those of the
author, which, though not essential to his historical criticism,
nevertheless underlie it throughout, and give to his conclu
sions the cold and negative character that need not of
necessity belong to them. The religious philosophy implied
B 2
�20
Strauss's Neiv Work on the Life of Jesus.
in this book, which, we again say, should be considered
something apart from its historical criticism, seems to us
essentially pantheistic, and at war with the deepest heart of
the religion of whose history it is the exposition. Take away
the belief in a Living God who can be approached in prayer
and has communion through his omnipresent Spirit with the
human soul; take away the sense of our personal relation to
a Personal God—the child’s sense of kindred with an Ever
lasting Father, which gives the hope of an undying life in
Him ; take away the trust, that the love and the worth and
the beauty which shew themselves in things perishing and
phenomenal, are an influx from an exhaustless Source which
is at once within and beyond them; and what remains that
deserves the name of religion—to carry home the words of
Jesus to the inmost recesses of the heart, or to explain the
power and sanctity of his own life? We feel, therefore, a
much stronger objection to the philosophic theory which pre
vents our author’s admission of the miraculous—that is, of
the intrusion of any power from without into the phenomenal
—than to the historical criticism which shews that in any
particular case the report of the miracle has probably had a
mythic origin. We will even add, that were criticism to suc
ceed in demonstrating that not one miracle recorded in the
New Testament was historically true, with a better religious
philosophy put under that criticism and tempering its re
sults, our faith would receive no shock, and our trust in the
great truths of Christianity would be as strong as ever.
The difficulty that we experience in wholly giving up the
miraculous, is not a religious, but a critical one. Not a few
of the miracles of the New Testament, it is true, may, we
think, not unreasonably be considered as the product of
tradition, interpreting literally the poetic imagery of Isaiah,
*
and assuming that the wonderful works of Elijah and Elisha
must have been repeated by Messiah himself. But allow
ing the utmost for this source of the miraculous, there still
remains so large an amount of extraordinary curative influ
ence, .explicable by no laws at present accessible to us,
interwrought with the inmost substance of the history of
Jesus, that if we attempt to separate it, the very texture of
* “ Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of the deaf shall
be unstopped. Then shall the lame man leap as a hart, and the tongue of the
dumb sing.” (Isaiah xxxv. 5, 6.)
�Strauss' s New Work on the Life of Jesus.
21
the narrative is destroyed; and if we suppose it altogether
the creation of a pious fancy, so sharp a blow would be
inflicted on the credibility of even the great fundamental
outlines of the history, that we could hardly tell whether
we were dealing with any reality at all. Our faith in
Christ’s word and work does not depend, we are free to
confess, on any alleged miraculous attestation in their favour,
but on our inward experience of their truth and power ; we
should believe in them just as firmly, if it could be proved
that not a single miracle had ever been wrought: but we
wish to save the character of the narrative through which
they are conveyed to us ; and taking our stand on the ear
liest and most authentic Palestinian traditions, which have
probably been preserved to us in Matthew, and partly, per
haps, in Mark,—we have never yet met with any critical
process which could entirely extrude what has at least the
semblance of miracle, and leave eveji the ground-work of a
credible history behind. What the consistent anti-supernaturalist has to shew is this—how he can divest the
person of Jesus of all miraculous influence attaching to it,
and yet leave as large a residuum of positive history as
Strauss himself accepts as the basis of his theory. John the
Baptist was in the first instance as much the object of Mes
sianic expectation as Jesus, and for some time their two
ministries appear to have occupied independent spheres;
yet no traditions of supernatural power have gathered round
the person of the former. We find it difficult, therefore, to
believe that gifts of some extraordinary kind, displayed
chiefly in curative effects, and involving al.^o deep spiri
tual insight, were not possessed by Jesus—a result of the
peculiar organization with which he was originally endowed;
and that these formed, as it were, the punctum saliens of
primitive fact out of which the whole mass of mythic and
legendary amplification naturally grew, as they may at first
have been the providential means of exciting and securing
the attention of some whom more spiritual influences would
not so readily have reached. Obscurity is cast over this sub
ject by the vague meaning attached to the word miraculous.
Scarcely two persons use it in the same sense. No one of
any philosophical culture, whatever his religious theory,
ever supposes God to act without law. Law springs out of
the very nature of mind. The more perfect mind is, the more
�22
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
surely it is obedient to law, as the condition of harmonious
and self-consistent action,—involving in its effects all the
difference between a kosmos and a chaos. But it does not,
therefore, follow that the deepest laws of the infinite working
can be seized by a finite intelligence, or are even contained
as yet within the limits of the phenomenal. The idea of
progress and development which the past history of our
planet irresistibly forces on us, implies the continual acces
sion of something new, which, as it transcends the actual,
the actual is not of itself competent to originate. Out of
the vast, unexplored possibilities of the spiritual, which
enfold and pervade and underlie the phenomenal, influences
at times may, and (if the world is to advance) must issue,
which contradict the results of experience, and limit the
universality of laws which a premature generalization had
accepted as final. It is this occasional intrusion of the spi
ritual into the phenomenal, which we suppose people mean
in general to express when they speak of the miraculous.
No doubt the disposition to believe in such intrusion (which
is in itself significant, as forming a part of the natural faith
of the human soul) has led constantly to its gratuitous sup
position, and, in ages when there was no science, assumed
its presence in cases which further inquiry shewed were
resolvable into laws uniformly in operation around us. The
number of such cases, it must be confessed, has been regu
larly on the decrease with the progress of science. Never
theless, after every deduction on this account, phenomena
are still on record, supported by unexceptionable testimony
(testimony, the rejection of which would subvert the foun
dations of all history), and inexplicable by any laws which
science can define, for the solution of which we must go to
something beyond the phenomenal as yet known to us.
Every one at all acquainted with the history of religion, or,
if the reader so pleases, of superstition (for the two histories
are closely interwoven with each other), is well aware how
constantly every fresh outbreak of the religious life, espe
cially after a long suppression in formality and indifference,
has been accompanied by some mysterious and unaccount
able phenomena. Our own generation has witnessed them.
The miracles ascribed to St. Bernard are reported on more
direct testimony than can be alleged for those of the Gos
pels. All such cases we would have subjected to the seve-
�Strauss’s New Work on the Life of Jesus.
23
rest scrutiny, and left to rest each on its appropriate evidence,
apart from any theory. They will probably be found to
contain a large mixture of delusion and self-deception with
some unaccountable reality at bottom—linking our human
nature, here and there, amid the tangled web of the actual,
with dim, mysterious agencies which are slumbering as yet
in the bosom of the Infinite, and of which only at the rarest
intervals we catch a passing glimpse. This is a subject on
which no man will venture to dogmatize. It is the truest
philosophy to hold the mind in candid and reverent sus
pense. The extreme devotion of the present age to the
physical sciences confines its interest and belief to the
ascertainable and phenomenal, and indisposes it to any
recognition of the vaguer realities of the spiritual. We only
desire to enter our protest against the narrow and one-sided
philosophy which would shut up all possibility within the
limits of law reducible to scientific formulas, and exclude
the great Parent Mind from all direct action on the condi
tion of his human family.
*
The logical rigour with which Strauss carries out the
consequences of his system, and his determination to ex
plain every word and every act which appear to him not
to come within the range of the strictly historical, in ac
cordance with its pervading principle, have blinded him
in some cases to the moral beauty and significance of the
narrative, and the deep spiritual intuitions which, amidst
errors of scriptural interpretation, have filled Christ’s words
with enduring light. His theory binds his faculties as with
a spell, and keeps him intent on exploring the dim traces
of rabbinical refinement and mysticism, when with a mind
* There is a superficial philosophy cun-ent in some quarters, that will probably
treat with derision the conceded possibilities of the foregoing paragraph ; that
accepts without difficulty, by the aid of certain traditional formulas, all the
miracles of the Old and New Testament, as exceptional cases (peculiar and
limited to them) in the order of the world, and yet scouts as weak and irrational
credulity every attempt to reduce such cases to deeper but constant laws, and
bring them into harmony with the facts of universal history. To the consider
ation of such persons, who, to be consistent, should believe more or believe less,
we commend the following wise and seasonable words, ascribed (we have reason
to know, on the best authority) to one of the first mathematicians of the age :
“What I reprobate is, not the wariness which widens and lengthens inquiry,
but the assumption which prevents or narrows it; the imposture theory, which
frequently infers imposture from the assumed impossibility of the phenomena
asserted, and then alleges imposture against the examination of the evidence.”
Preface to a book entitled, “ From Matter to Spirit,” p. xxix.
�24
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
more open and erect he could not have failed to bring more
prominently into view that remarkable feature of the gos
pel history—the sympathy, if we may so express it, of its
miraculous elements with the moral life of Christ himself,
glowing with the same warm hues of human tenderness
and love, breathing the same deep tone of devout trust and
aspiration, as if the common and the miraculous of the re
cord grew out of the same spiritual root. This may be no
sufficient proof of the strictly historical character of these
narratives, but it attests at least the intensity of the im
pression under which they were conceived, and shews how
the spirit of Christ had entered into and moulded anew
the minds that consorted with him, and handed down the
living tradition of his personal presence which has taken
shape and consistency in our present Gospels. The pre
dominance of this moral and religious element is the great
distinction of the canonical from the apocryphal Gospels,
and a proof of the fine spiritual tact of the primitive Church
which so clearly separated them.
We shall notice only two instances of what appears to
us a certain logical narrowness in Strauss. In commenting
on the beautiful words about the resurrection, Matt. xxii.
51, 52; Mark xii. 26, 27; and Luke xx. 37, 38 (pp. 259, 260),
he sees no force, as De Wette does, and as we do, in the
inference drawn by Christ from the pregnant expression,
“the God of Abraham, of Isaac, and of Jacob,” clenched by
the sublime universalism peculiar to Luke—iravrse yap avrw
Z&<nv—“ for all live unto him.” We may admit that the exe
gesis adopted by Christ in this passage was a rabbinical one,
and that the words taken by themselves furnish no direct
proof of the doctrine associated with them. But Strauss
himself discerns an evidence of Christ’s greatness in the new
spirit with which he read the old scripture, shewing him
to be a prophet, though no interpreter; and it is surprising
to us that one who can see and acknowledge all this, should
not also feel the depth and force of the spiritual intuition
which perceived at once there could be no death for the
soul in God, and, truer than the ancient words in which it
*
found utterance, was the revelation of an eternal reality to
the world. - The other passage is the story of the raising of
Lazarus. We are constrained by internal and external evi
dence to believe with Strauss that this narrative cannot be
�Strauses New Work on the Life of Jesus.
25
historical We cannot else understand how an event of
such importance, affecting the most intimate friends of
Jesus, could have been so entirely passed over without the
remotest allusion by the Synoptical Gospels. We think
there is great force in Strauss’s reasons for regarding it as
an embodiment in this concrete form of the doctrine, that
the Word is in himself, h avaoraaic, koI f) fah—“the resur
rection and the life.” But in his rigid development of this
idea, and in his anxiety to shew how it has influenced
every part of the narrative, he loses all sense of that ex
quisite tenderness and pathos which would seem to have
so entirely possessed the mind of the evangelist, that in
the glow of composition he forgets the divinity of his sub
ject, and is completely carried away by his human sympa
thies, and in individual expressions falls into dissonance
with his general theme. Strauss, like some other critics,
more logical than his author, is driven to harsh interpre
tations to bring him into harmony with himself. The be
trayal of deep emotion at the grave, conveyed by the words,
ive[ipip.T]ffaTo, trapafcv, f.p.[3pipLpEV0Q (John xi. 34, 38), he un
derstands of the indignation of Jesus at the insensibility of
the bystanders to the greatness and power of the present
Logos. The whole context, however, shews that the writer
meant something very different, and permitting his human
traditions of Christ to overpower for the moment the hypo
thesis of his divinity, has described with uncommon beauty
the struggle in the mind of Jesus with the strength of his na
tural affections. That this is the true rendering of the pas
sage is evident from the subjoined rip Trvsvpan and er lavra,
which qualify the original force of the verb Ipflpipaopat, and
from the single word ISaKpvaEv which furnishes a key to
the whole.
As John has added some things not contained in the
Synoptics, so he has strangely omitted others which are
pre-eminently characteristic of them. There is no curative
effect more constantly recorded in the three first Gospels
than the expulsion of evil spirits, while no instance of it
occurs in the fourth. Strauss’s explanation of this pecu
liarity is at least plausible and entitled to consideration.
Reported cases of this kind were common in that age all
over the world. Josephus and the sophists make frequent
mention of them. And something analogous is said to be
�26
Strauss’s New Work on the Life of Jesus.
met with to this day in the East. Strauss thinks that the
great moral power of Jesus, and the reverence which his
presence inspired, might exercise a healing influence on 1
persons liable to the affections that were popularly ascribed
to demoniacal possession. This was in perfect harmony
with the popular persuasion respecting him. We know
there were then regular exorcists by profession both among
the Jews and the heathens. But this class of persons had
already fallen into disrepute at the commencement of the
second century; and Strauss finds an indication of the later
origin of John’s Gospel in the exclusion from its pages of
all cures of this kind, which it would have been no longer
regarded as consistent with the dignity of the incarnate
Word to ascribe to him.
After the foregoing exposition of his theory, it is hardly
necessary to add that Strauss does not believe in the histo
rical fact of the resurrection of the body on the third day,
nor, we fear we must add, in individual immortality. Indi
viduals, like all other phenomena, according to his view of
things, are transient and perishable. Only the primal idea
which evolves and develops itself in and through them, is
eternal. He exposes with great acuteness the complexities
and inconsistencies of the several evangelical narratives, and
shews that they exhibit traces of two perfectly distinct tra
ditions of the appearances of the risen Jesus—one dreamy
and phantom-like, the other, and probably the later, hard
ened into the distincter outlines of corporeal manifestation.
He thinks that the apostles and their associates fled on the
event of the crucifixion into Galilee ; and that hence arose
the tradition that Christ first manifested himself to them
amid the scenes of his early ministry, in fulfilment of his
promise to meet them there. It took more time, in his
opinion, than is allowed by our present Gospels, for the full
growth of the conviction that he had risen from the dead,
had appeared to his first disciples, and was still spiritually
present with his church. The minuter specifications of time
and place and particular appearance—three, eight and forty
days, the Galilean mountain, the walk to Emmaus, the
closed chamber at Jerusalem, the shore of the Sea of Tibe
rias—he considers to be altogether the product of a later
tradition. All idea of resuscitation after an apparent death,
which was a favourite resource of the old rationalists, and
�Strauss’s New Work on the Life of Jesus.
27
which appears from his posthumous papers to have been
entertained by Schleiermacher himself, is rejected by Strauss
unconditionally, as inconsistent with the best attested facts
of the case. What became of the mortal remains of Jesus
there are no means, he thinks, of our ever knowing. The
belief in the resurrection of Christ he regards with Ewald
as a result of the intense hopes and longings of the disciples,
tradition magnifying dim and uncertain rumours, and the
words of Messianic promise working with a foregone con
clusion on fervid and enthusiastic minds. But this expla
nation does not appear to us, any more than that of Ewald,
sufficient to explain the extraordinary fact in the origin of
the new religion which five words of Tacitus have impressed
in indelible characters on the page of universal history—
repressaque in prcesens—rursus erumpebat. What was the
cause of that wonderful change in the mind of Paul which
made the spiritual world a reality to him ? His own words
imply (1 Cor. xv. 5—8) that the same appearances which
convinced him that Jesus was risen from the dead, had con
vinced others before him. And what was the effect of that
conviction ? It transformed their whole mind and life. The
disciples before and the disciples after the death of Jesus
(an event which might have been expected wholly to crush
the nascent faith, and in the first instance seemed actually
to do so) were completely different men; before, doubting,
timid and carnal; after, bold, confident and spiritual. Nor
was the effect limited to them. Through them, a new light
entered the world, a new hope brightened the horizon of
our planet. Immortality, which had been the floating dream
of a speculative^ few, became the steadfast trust of multi
tudes. The earliest literature and art of the Christians,
their simple hymns and the rude frescoes which adorned
their tombs, touchingly shew how the future beyond the
grave, to which friends and kindred had already passed,
was to them a nearer and more vivid reality than the
troubled and persecuted present in which they lived on
earth. And this has been the animating principle of Chris
tianity throughout its subsequent diffusion over the earth,
marking a new era in the spiritual development of our race,—•
the assurance of a wider and more glorious future for the
immortal soul. The origin of this new conviction we can
trace back to a definite period in past history associated
�28
Strauss’s JVew Work on the Life of Jesus.
with the traditions of Christ. And can we account for it
without the supposition of some fresh infusion from the
spiritual into the phenomenal ? Can that which renovated
the world have grown out of the world? Could death
develop life ? We may never be able to give an objective
precision to our conception of the cause. It is involved in
deepest mystery. But we think Baur was nearer to the
truth than either Ewald or Strauss with all their elaborate
explanations, when of the impression—which transformed
the mind of Paul and of all who with him were engaged in
evangelizing the world,—which linked invisible by a living
bond with visible things, and constituted the firm, immove
able basis of the whole superstructure of the future church
—he declared, as the result of a long life of profound and
fearless inquiry, he did not believe that we should ever by
any psychological analysis be able to give a satisfactory
account. And the deep conviction produced in our mind
by the contemplation of these historical phenomena is this—
that as in relation to the present world the welcome recep
tion of Christ’s spirit and the experience of its happy effects
are an evidence of the eternal truth which flowed in it,—so,
by whatever means it may have been first infused into the
tide of human thought, the firm hold which the doctrine of
immortality has had on the mind of civilized men ever
since the days of the apostles, the response that it has met
with, the uneffaceable mark which it has left on literature,
philosophy and art, and the way in which it has contributed
to harmonize and round, off into a consistent whole, our
conceptions of God and providence and human life,—are
proof conclusive that a doctrine which possesses such en
during vitality and draws its nourishment from the deepest
sources of humanity, can be no other than the voice of God,
and must have its certain counterpart in some invisible
reality.
One satisfaction at least we can derive from this work of
Strauss. It shews us the utmost that we have to fear from
hostile criticism. We now know the worst. Never were the
earliest records of our faith subjected to a more rigorous and
searching scrutiny. Never were the possible elements of
truth and falsehood sifted with a more suspicious and un
sparing hand. The author has done his work with a cold
blooded courage and determination. No lingering affectior
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
29
has blinded the clearness of his intellectual vision. No pre
judice of the heart has hindered him from seeing the bare,
simple fact involved in any dubious narrative. And now—
bating his religious philosophy, which is something quite
extraneous to his historical criticism—what, after all, is the
result ? What great principle of conduct, what consolatory
trust of humanity, is weakened—that would have stood on
a firmer basis and been surrounded with clearer evidence,
had we still continued to take the whole mass of the gospel
history as historical truth, and had no one ever thought of
separating myth and fact? We have still authentic indica
tion of the earliest workings of the greatest moral revolution
that has taken place in the world; and we have glimpses,
so original that they must be true, of the wonderful perso
nality which introduced it, and the more stimulating, the
more spiritually creative, for the very reason that they are
glimpses. We can still trace the first swelling and shooting
forth of the prolific seed which has impregnated the world
with a new life. We feel to this day that we are possessors
of the same deep consciousness and the same aspiring trust
which originated those great changes, and unites us with
them in one unbroken continuity of spiritual life. Now, as
then, it is through the heart and conscience of believing
man that God speaks to our world. As we trace back the
great stream of human thought through the ages to its
source, we observe how it is enriched at a particular point
by a sudden accession of moral and spiritual strength ; and
that alone would prove the intervention of some great in
spiring mind, were the result of modern criticism on ancient
books more destructive than it really is—and would still
have proved it, had those books never existed at all, or been
entirely swept away in the persecution of Diocletian. We
are thankful indeed for their preservation as they are ; but
their chief value to us is the witness which they bear to
the regenerating influence of a spirit which could only
have issued from some great and holy mind, and through
that mind from God himself. Dor the grandest of human
trusts is the presence of a Living God in history, suggesting
the highest thoughts and noblest impulses that animate it,
and guiding them to distant issues, which the very souls
through which they worked, did not anticipate and could
not conceive.
%
�30
Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
We have remarked in an earlier part of this paper, that
Strauss does not do justice to the resources of his own theory.
It is more conservative than he allows it to be. His philo
sophy has marred the applications of his criticism. He
remarks (p. 624), with a cold desolateness of tone which
sometimes chills the reader in his pages, that the dispersion
of the mythic from a narrative does not restore the historical;
and that we know less of the actual Jesus of Nazareth than
of any great man of antiquity—less, for example, than we
know of Socrates. Even if we confine ourselves to the intel
lectual and objective life, which is all that the criticism of
Strauss here contemplates, this statement is certainly over
done. It is not more difficult to trace the characteristic fea
tures of the man Jesus through the different media by which
it is transmitted to us in the three first Gospels and the
fourth, than it is to form an idea of the peculiar idiosyncrasy
of Socrates from the widely different representations of Xeno
phon and Plato. But if we descend into the deeper life of
the soul, into the region of affection and sympathy, where
the truest evidence of personality is to be found,—then we
say the advantage is altogether on the side of Christ, and
we have proofs of love and reverence and the transforming
influence of a great and genial soul in the diversified con
ceptions of the apostolic tradition, such as the records of
the Socratic school are unable to supply. Even the mythic
may here be said to cumulate the evidence; for it could
only spring from a depth of impression and an intensity of
feeling, going down to the very sources of the moral life,
which the cold admiration of Athenian intellect was impo
tent to produce.
Strauss remarks, that only one side of our humanity is
fully exemplified in the person of Christ—that which con
nects us with God and the religious life; while the indus
trial, the political, the scientific and the artistic elements,
which are so indispensable to the progress of our race, are all
wanting. This is true, no doubt; but he should have added,
that the spiritual element which is so perfectly revealed in
Christ, is essential to the growth of all the rest, and in every
human being of every class and in every age is the source
of inward peace and the principle of a real sanctification of
the life. When, the soul is once placed, as it is by the
spirit of Christ, in a right relation towards God, the great
�Strauss's New Work on the Life of Jesus.
31
conversion of humanity is effected; it is put in the path of
Bhealthful self-development; and the qualities which may
yet be needed to complete the full proportions of our nature,
may be left to arrange themselves organically around this
central germ, through the free working of our collective
faculties guided by the results of experience. In a fine
passage (p. 625), which we have not left ourselves space to
quote, Strauss does ample justice to Christianity, and places
Jesus in the first rank of those who have contributed to
develop the ideal of humanity.
We cannot close this volume, strongly as on some points
we have expressed our dissent, and notwithstanding our pain
ful sense of the serious deficiencies of its religious philosophy,
without a strong feeling of respect for the author, not only
for his learning and ability, which none will dispute, but
also for his courage and truthfulness, his moral earnestness,
and his general candour towards those who are opposed to
him. With all its faults and extravagances, for no theory
finds its true limits all at once, his book will leave its per
manent mark on the theology of the future. It has fixed
one or two points in advance, from which it will henceforth
be impossible to go back. What we have most to complain
of is a certain one-sidedness, which the author no doubt
identifies with completeness and consequentiality. On all
points he makes it too much an absolute question of Yes
or No. He therefore shews on all occasions far more tole
ration for the old thorough-going orthodox than for those
who, cautiously feeling their way towards a wider truth,
stop short of the sweeping results at which he has himself
arrived. Our own modification of his theory would doubt
less bring us under the censure which he pronounces on all
who seek their rest in a juste milieu. We can only say we
have striven to imitate him, where he is most worthy of
imitation—in his love of truth—by giving utterance simply
and without reserve to the conviction that has been produced
in us by the perusal of his book, and by some previous
years of thought and study on the same subject. For the
rest, we regard with no slight suspicion all violent disruption
from the faith and hope which have guided and consoled
the best and wisest of our race through long thousands of
years; and we have yet to learn that truth must always
be sought in one of two contradictory extremes.
��
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
Strauss's new work on the life of Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Taylor, John James
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 31 p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: A review in English by John James Taylor of David Friedrich Strauss's work 'Das Leben Jesu, fur das deutsche Volk bearbeitet; Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1864. Inscription in ink on front page: With the respect of J.J.T. Includes bibliographical references. Reprinted from Theological Review 1:335-365, July 1864. Author not named in the review. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Title of the book translated: 'The Life of Jesus, adapted to the German People'.
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
[1864?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5252
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Strauss's new work on the life of Jesus), 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
German
Conway Tracts
David Friedrich Strauss
Jesus Christ-Historicity
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/88d032db333efcd79d4697f29729d7d5.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=WAK7IKkyM8amjHDHzo45R%7Eb8WRXK32iEplXiDt9li4AkFBBBw7vmbG0tf3ugBWlyj0uCx2CXz0j8dOTSv66uUWUV-teIGaaPJR1ojtBcfADseZmcPFczyMyNErqObPxOz-MsCcWgSx-cXNu2peGQRulL652l41TZjD2Rn%7E6wxgJZ3J-OlKy0BNyG0gnMC-J1l9Nr1p4QvIG6lwimYXoio%7EKsVW31GpTxnQt7tg6AG7c7TlSu6westHczZTsYMTzX2BDUiAe17WwjWFZQdchBf7PrV%7EV6-u%7ELQSV-zslwKZFC4w70c1LYBO6xAjV-55LTmQzW4LR3KiC-0763ZAM3Xw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
df5aba88fc549cf1b5def8a739235154
PDF Text
Text
THE< RESURRECTION.
\
"4'’^
Jr (Sasier
. ,..
-«»
gtonxmg Snmwn;
AT THE
>
FREE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, CROYDON,
LONDON.
•-* '
*' v *
t.
•
'
.
’ \
BY THE
REV. ROBERT RODOLPH SUFFIELD.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
Price Threepence.
��THE RESURRECTION.
Did the Evangelists believe in the bodily resurrection
of Jesus ?
Undoubtedly. But they did not connect it,with
the immortality of the soul or with the conscious
ness of the soul after death; for they attribute to Jesus
the words to the dying thief, “ This day thou shalt be
with me in Paradise,” i.e., on Friday evening, on the day
of my death; and no one supposes the body of the
thief to have shared in the miraculous resurrection at
tributed to the body of Jesus. But as a miracle, un
doubtedly the first disciples believed it.
Did the Evangelists attach special importance to that
miracle 1
Obviously not: their transparent sincerity, their en
tire truthfulness surpassed even their credulity.
We have every reason for concluding the existing
Gospels to be compilations founded upon earlier records
which have perished. Biographies of uncertain author
ship, translated by unknown persons in a disputable
period—biographies not asserting either authorship, or
infallibility, or inspiration, handed down to us through
many varying MSS., cannot be allowed to settle ques
tions of fact, however precious they may justly be to us
as the earliest records of the origin of Christianity.
The very circumstances which exalt the truthful inten
tions of the authors, serve to weaken belief in the in
cidents recorded. The Evangelists agree in certain
general statements, though differing in important de
�4
The Resurrection.
tails j they agree in recording that the body of Jesus
was buried as soon as ever it had been taken down
from the Cross; that the body was privately interred
in a new grave erected in the secluded garden of a
friend ; that “before the break of day the body had dis
appeared ; that no one had witnessed the mode of its
disappearance, or could testify to anything but the fact
that, whereas the body had been laid in the cave serv- '
ing as a tomb, after a few hours it had disappeared,
nothing remaining excepting the winding sheets, folded
and placed on one side; Jesus was seen afterwards,
walking about the garden.
If the Disciples had anticipated the resurrection, and
attached importance to it, they would have taken some
means to secure knowledge of so interesting a prodigy,
whereas none of his apostles see the body of Jesus
buried, or appear at all at the tomb till it is empty.
Joseph of Arimathsea, Nicodemus, Mary Magdalene,
and Mary the mother of Joses, are alone cognisant of
any of the details as to his burial—alone present;
indeed, the gospel limits to the two women the behold
ing where the body of Jesus was laid. His mother
does not appear—only one female relative and one
female friend. But the gospel tells us that even they
left the tomb ; and from Friday evening until Sunday
morning no disciple is described as approaching the
grave. This was not the result of want of affection,
but in consequence of the strictness of the Judaic law
as to the Sabbath. The Paschal solemnities lasted
through an octave. On Thursday this octave had
commenced ; and, according to the first three Evan
gelists, Jesus celebrated the Paschal supper with his
disciples on Thursday evening, imitating the example
of all households. The author of the fourth gospel
contradicts their statements. He wrote many years
after, when a complicated theology had commenced,
and Jewish credulity wished to imagine that Jesus had
died on the day of the sacrifice of the Paschal lamb:
�The Resurrection.--
5
therefore he drops entirely all allusion to the last
supper, which has been called in later times the insti
tution of the Eucharist. The beauty and spirituality of
what is called John’s Gospel must not make us forget
that its lateness of date excuses its insuperable varia
tions as to facts ; and we must prefer the statement
of three books to that of one.
Thus Jesus followed the national custom and cele
brated the Paschal Supper on the usual evening with
his friends, using wine, according to the Rabbinical
practice; on Friday he was put to death—his burial
was hastened because the Saturday being the Sabbath
Day, the Jews, who had legally murdered Jesus, could
not be guilty of the greater crime of touching a dead
body on the Sabbath, and the Sabbath falling within
the octave of the passover was a great Sabbath. His
friends and relations dared not, therefore, offend the
popular prejudice or violate the sabbatical law by
walking on the Sabbath Day • and what would have
been worse, walking to visit a grave. But at the
earliest convenient hour after the close of the great
Sabbath • three women according to one Evangelist,
two according to another, Mary Magdalene alone ac
cording to another, went to visit the grave. The
Evangelists again disagree as to the details, whether two
angels or one appeared—whether the angelic vision
was within the tomb or outside ; whether the stone
was rolled away in presence of the women, or found
rolled away. But amidst these discrepancies, the
narratives agree in showing that no one whatsoever saw,
or professed to have seen, Jesus rise from the tomb.
If the disciples had anticipated the resurrection,
they would naturally have watched night and day
awaiting such a miracle; whereas the two women
came expecting to find the corpse of Jesus, and brought
sweet spices to anoint it, and their only anxiety was
how, on their arrival, they should open the stone gate
of the vault.
�6
The Resurrection.
So little importance had the Apostles attached to
certain figurative words attributed to Jesus, and sup
posed afterwards to have been prophetical of his
resurrection—that when the women go and tell them
that they met Jesus in the garden—that the tomb was
empty—they accuse the women of telling idle tales.
Peter hastening to the tomb, and finding it empty,
is at once satisfied. John follows and also sees the
sepulchre empty, and “he saw and he believed,”—
namely, he saw an empty grave and the winding sheet
lying folded up there. They saw nothing else—they
did not even see the angel or angels, but what they did
see they believed. Afterwards they and others are
described as having seen Jesus, and spoken and eaten
with him. The Evangelist tells us distinctly what
was the common opinion of the inhabitants up to the
time he wrote, viz., that the statement of the soldiers
was true, “ rhe disciples came by night and stole
away the body while we slept.”
Another rumour also existed, the origin of which we
recognise in the surprise of Pilate when Joseph of
Arimathsea asked for the body of Jesus; Pilate
“marvelled if he were already dead,” and sent and
asked the centurion whether he were really dead;
whereupon the governor, on his sole and friendly
testimony, permitted the Arimathaean to take the body.
A rumour spread that Jesus had not quite died on the
cross, but revived under the care of his mother, and
lingered on for some days amongst her friends, and
then sunk beneath his wounds and sufferings.
To meet that rumour, the author of the last Gospel
states that a soldier wounded the side of Jesus with
his lance, causing blood and water to flow, which the
writer unscientifically supposes to afford certain proof
of his death.
Generally when a criminal was crucified, the body
was fastened with ropes to the cross and allowed to
remain for weeks suspended till death ensued as the
�The Resurrection.
7
result of starvation and exposure. The Evangelists
tell us that an additional suffering was inflicted on
Jesus in the piercing his hands. The mental and
bodily torture thus endured by Jesus might be sup
posed likely to cause him at length to swoon away and
become insensible j but hanging thus on the cross for
a few hours would not in itself cause his death, al
though we know that sometimes men of fine organiza
tion and acute sensibility die under some sudden shock
of pain, of fear, or of grief.
As time advanced, belief in the bodily resurrection
of Jesus intensified, amongst Christians, though the
event obtained no credence amongst Jews, Romans, or
Greeks. But after all, the first witnesses can be alone
taken as the establishes of the fact. Some will deem
the evidence sufficient, and will feel a pleasure in
considering that an exceptional portent happened to
one so holy in his character, so exceptional in his
influence.
I appreciate and respect such a feeling, but I do not
share it. To my own mind, a strange portent needing,
to be worth anything, a juridical proof, would rather
confuse my mind, and cause me less to advert to the
simple human grandeur of the moral and spiritual
character of Jesus, as surrounded with myths it floats
down to us amidst the traditions, the love, and the
reverence of millions. If Jesus had not been what he
was, his resurrection would not have made him any
thing. There are many who believe that, as recorded
in 2 Kings xiii., a man was raised from the grave—
but no one reveres or loves him on that account.
We feel an interest in Lazarus because he and his
sisters were loved by Jesus, but those who only believe
in the moral resurrection of Lazarus, and think that
rumour materialised that into a miracle, would gain no
higher thought if they were induced to believe the
portent.
The Evangelist tells us that a great many persons
�8
The Resurrection.
were raised from the dead at the time of the death of
Jesus, and appeared to many in the streets of Jeru
salem. Those persons have never obtained from any
one either love or reverence, but only wonder what
became of them, and why they said nothing about the
death land they had left. The prodigies attributed to
the death of Moses and of Elias, only excite wonder in
the minds of those who believe them; and other
people recognise the resemblance existing between the
legendary mythology and hero worship of all nations
and of all religions. Cultured and reverent minds do
not despise or ridicule the portents which may seem
merely legendary, so long as they are interwoven with
great ideas, and represent in a material form some
lofty thought, some sublime virtue, some external
verity; they only direct attention to the fallacy of a
legend when it is being perverted to mischief.
Has the resurrection of the body of Jesus any
connection whatever with the doctrine of the im
mortality of the soul ? None. Lazarus might have
been miraculously restored to life, and then died and
come to naught, and the same as to Jesus.
Moreover, when Jesus thought he was dying and
said, “ This day thou shalt be with me in paradise,” he
testified his belief in the existence of the soul separate
from the earthly body. His coming from that future
abode to take up his body again would prove nothing,
especially as no word is attributed to him regarding
that state which he is supposed to have left.
If it were necessary for the action of the soul of
Jesus that he should resume his body, and if the
same necessity lies upon us ; Where are souls now 1
unconscious in the graves, or in non-consciousness
where ? and if Jesus thought that, how could he say
“ This day, &c.” If Paul thought that, how could he
say that he longed to depart that he might be with
Jesus.
If the author of the Revelations thought that, how
�The Resurrection.
9
could lie describe the white robed band of saints in
the spirit world.
Undoubtedly Paul attached great importance to the
dogma of the bodily resurrection ; and the unfortunate
adoption of the 15th chapter of 1st Corinthians into
the Church of England burial service has accustomed
thoughtless people, f.e., most people, to connect some
how the resurrection of the body with the immortality
of the soul. So sadly has that error possessed minds,
that we often meet with persons who have privately
come to doubt the immortality of the soul, because
they have doubted the resurrection of the body. Such
persons will quote, almost hopelessly, the words of
Paul, 11 If Christ be not risen, then is our preaching
vain, and your faith is also vain.” Your faith in
what ? In the immortality of the soul 1 No !—in the
speedy approach of the glorified reign of the Messiah
over the elect; i.e., faith in an event then universally
looked for by Christians, but which time has proved
erroneous. Before that generation had passed away
the world was to have been devastated with fire, the
Messiah to have come on the clouds of heaven to
gather and protect his chosen people ; i.e., those living
awaiting him and practising righteousness, and those
who had, to the surprise of the other Christians, died.
The death of any of the disciples amazed and dis
couraged all ; it seemed as if the Christian hope
of speedy redemption was failing. The fears of the
living were calmed by telling them that those who had
recently died should be restored to life, (just as Jesus
had been), and be numbered with the rest of the elect,
sharing with them the reign and triumph of the
Messiah. That hope enabled them to bear with pati
ence the miseries and insults to which they were
exposed.
The sublime spiritual teaching of Jesus had already
got lowered, Judaised, carnalised, materialised. His
simple-hearted disciples could not rise up to the
�IO
The Resurrection.
grandeur of his ideal. Their more sophistical suc
cessors adopted all their half-errors, and perpetuated
such by forming them into a theology, and gradually
petrifying it into creeds and formularies. It was
impossible for the Messiah and his saints to reign on
the earth, and to restore an Israel enlarged and
spiritualised, unless they possessed their bodies. ihe
saints who had died without witnessing the accom
plishment of the expectation which was to be realised
ere that generation had passed away must be placed on
an equality with the saints still in the flesh, and,
recovering their bodies, be caught up in the air to
meet the Lord at his second advent.
.
All that Pauline doctrine had nothing to do with
Christianity ; it was simply the Rabbinical fancy intro
duced and cultured for 150 years B.o. During that
period had arisen these ideas as to a Messiah, as also
the dogma of a bodily resurrection. Amidst those
dogmas Jesus had been reared—probably amongst the
ascetics of the Essenes ; possibly he accepted them ;
more probably he spiritualised them. The more we
advance in a critical study of the Gospels, the more are
we enabled to feel out our way, and to apprehend
what Jesus really said and really meant ; and the
further we advance in that reverent and cautious
criticism, the more do we discover the grandeur ot
his ideal.
,
The solemnity of to-day has borrowed and has ma
terialized that which was the. very essence of his
teaching—of a teaching so sublime, and yet so simp e,
we cannot surpass it, and yet it seems that every one
ought to have thought it. Turn from Jewish legends
about triumphant Messiahs—turn from Pauline and
Roman and Anglican legends about resurrections ot the
flesh, and let us contemplate e’er we part that resurrec
tion of the spirit which formed the essence ot the
teaching of Jesus. I speak not of the immortality ot
the soul—Jesus believed it but he did not expound 1,
�The Resurrection.
11
he added nothing to our knowledge or ideas concerning
it ; if he spoke of Hell, it was only in words like those
already used by Plato and by Rabbis ; if he spoke of
Heaven, it was only in the language of Ecclesiasticus
and Zoroaster, chastened by his love of humanity, but
he had his speciality, he had his revelation—to Jesus
the egotistic, self-seeking life was death—the earnest
loving thought and action was, life, the passing from
one to the other, resurrection. That was the essence of
his teaching, “ I am the Resurrection and the Life.”
Receive my great idea, and pass upwards from the
egotism of self, from the valley of the shadow of death,
into the light and the beauty of life, into the sweet
service of humanity. Arise from the grave of the past,
and walk in the light of great ideas, let the dead past
bury its dead, arise and live a life pure, noble, refined,
and gentle. It is only such as those, who live for ever,
borne upwards by the spirit of God. Thus the great
Master, only lowered when they surround him with
fables, stands in tears of charity by the grave of the
heart corrupt stinking amidst the rottenness of the
passions, and to the soul dead in egotism he says “Come
forth,” receive the inspiration of a noble desire : in the
name of God and of humanity arise and live. May that
thought, may that word, be to you and to me, my
brethren, a resurrection and a life—he who believeth
that word can never die.
�
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 resurrection: an Easter morning sermon at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, London
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Suffield, Robert Rodolph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 43 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1873]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5490
Subject
The topic of the resource
Sermons
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The resurrection: an Easter morning sermon at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, London), 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
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ- Resurrection
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b6e6f042dd2ac6608bc894150c0405d6.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=HSm7B0PSwGiBjb95oGP%7E97TvOnB3vJu-bDGcbxWuY1vHbrmestX5CWE%7EObOgfjXxDjgJtw0X3Kk8xyjaimdAE9dYnabju6PRsLdAieIrsngyYv09Je%7EYXhVy95i%7EuEnMdiKfQFx4Cu7ejoPxxQb69Nx5FzW-KMcnwHCKVIBRpNt7hKzI7lw-TtpEKOfrMqPf%7En7zHg5nDW-3eZGrQMrD3wOM0faDIunsJOZdpT8V%7EfGzFESSZmULXTMXLorKxznBpmlsVnq5NFv2oPkqi7AvQXWuqJhZBoI10Sl2ajThKIwnhgRvyZwx58nOM3acOqT8oekWA1cy8DeV4SdURhYYag__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b8599de83046cf68523402637b381002
PDF Text
Text
IS JESUS GOD?
A SERMON
PREACHED AT THE FREE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
CROYDON.
�G
/
IS JESUS GOD?
A SE RMON
PREACHED ON TRINITY SUNDAY,
AT the
FREE
CHRISTIAN
CHURCH,
CROYDON, NEAR LONDON.
BY
ROBERT RODOLPH SUFFIELD,
Minister of the Congregation.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
Price Threepence.
�PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, . W.
�IS JESUS GOD?
--------<-------
“ The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth : for the Father
seeketh such to worship Him.”— John iv. 23.
N increasing number of thoughtful men deem the
doctrine of the Deity of Jesus to be against God,
against reason, against progress, against results, against
history, against Jesus Christ, against the scriptures. Let
us briefly examine this doctrine.
In the Gospel of Luke, ch. ii., Mary, when chiding
Jesus, speaks of Joseph and herself as his parents:
“ Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” The
question we consider this morning is whether, in spite
of her statement, he was in reality God, and not the son
of Joseph and Mary. This is not a question of theo
logical subtleties, as when people discuss the incompre
hensible nature and essence of the Supreme Being; it is
a question of fact; it is also a question of great practical
importance. If Jesus is God, we lose his example as
man; but, what is more important, we distance God,
worshipping Him, as Jesus, in a rebaote Heaven. More
over, we obtain a very peculiar and somewhat hopeless
idea of God, namely, as acting a part, as feeble, or
appearing as if feeble, as capable of being flogged by
His creatures, as needing food, as being educated like a
young boy; the Omnipotent in a cradle, the Eternal
A
�6
Is Jesus God?
dying, the author of life in a grave. God, so utterly
defeated, perhaps may be defeated again. God, once a
baby, once a corpse, may hereafter thus relapse.
If the universe was once guided from a cradle, presided
over from a grave, guided by one obedient to a Jewish
married couple, we ought to know it. If such state
ments are false, we ought to be disabused of them as
injurious and superstitious.
Is Jesus God ? I do not consider this morning
whether he was a specially appointed and miraculous
Messiah, whether he was supernaturally born, or whether
his soul had in some way pre-existed, but, was he
God ? is he God ? not in some fanciful, poetical, unreal
way, but according to the belief of the Churches of
Rome, of England, of Scotland, as expressed in formu
laries, articles, and creeds: “ God of God, Light of
Light, Very God of Very God, of one substance with the
Father• ” as expressed in the collect for Christmas Day,
“ Our Lord Jesus Christ who liveth and reigneth with
Thee, ever one God, world without end,” and in the last
prayer of the Morning and Evening service (prayer of
St Chrysostom), where Jesus is addressed as “Almighty
God ”—or, as in the Litany, where he is addressed as
“God the Son,” and then, throughout the whole Litany,
invoked, to the neglect of God the Father—for, ex
cepting a few sentences, all the Litany is addressed to
Jesus. It is not the God of the Universe we find ad
dressed—but a God who had an incarnation, a nativity,
a circumcision, a baptism, a temptation, and a death—
such as, “ the Good Lord ” is asked to deliver us from
all the interior sins of the soul; from murder, heresy,*
and sudden death; and as supreme over the earth and
skies, is asked to preserve to our use the kindly fruits
and the due seasons. Watts, in one of his hymns,
speaks of “ This infant is the Mighty God, Come to be
* How shocking to associate with crimes the honourable
variations of opinion upon difficult questions.
�Is Jesus God?
7
suckled and adored;” and in another hymn he speaks of
Jesus as the “Infant Deity,” the “Bleeding God.”
The great Church of England divine, South, in
his defence of the Deity of Jesus, condemns “ the
men who cannot (as he says) persuade themselves
that Deity and Infinity could lie in the contemptible
dimensions of a human body;” “that- omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnipresence should be wrapped in
swaddling clothes; that the glorious Artificer of the
Universe who spread out the Heavens like a curtain, and
laid the foundations of the earth, turned carpenter, and
exercised his trade in a small shop,” &c. &c. The cele
brated defence of the Church of England, entitled the
4 Characters of a Believing Christian,’ and commended
by Convocation, thus presents a summary of Christian
belief: “ He believes a virgin to be the mother of a son,
and that very son of hers to be her Maker. He believes
Him whom Heaven and Earth could not contain to
have been shut up in a narrow womb ; to have been born
in time; who was and is from everlasting; to have been
a weak child carried in arms, who is the Almighty, and
Him once to have died who only hath in Himself life
and immortality.” Such is the faith which, according
to all the so-called orthodox Churches, is necessary to
everlasting salvation.
Such is the orthodox dogma of the Deity of Jesus.
Is not the very statement of it enough to prove the first
two heads of my argument—that it is against God, his
greatness and unchangeableness, against reason, and all
the apprehensions of our mind ?
But some, who in recent days have embraced a new
dogmatic position, and who teach that Jesus was not
God in the orthodox sense, but only as a kind of mani
festation of God, argue against us, and say, “ By denying
such a divinity in the nature of Jesus you lower
humanity—it is good to admit that in one human body
and one human soul the divine soul of the Universe was
breathing, inspiring, dwelling.” We reply: “ Un
�8
Is Jesus God?
doubtedly; but such dogma, thus explained, is a
heresy according to the decision of all the Churches ;
you have borrowed the idea from us, and limited to
Jesus what we declare to be in various degrees the
appanage of all; we recognise the Divine Soul of the
Universe, breathing through all souls, and according to
the great word of Jesus, making all men “ one with him,
and one with his father.” The dogma of the Deity of
Jesus deprives us of the greatest idea of God, violates
the reason and consciousness of mankind, and, if
explained mystically, limits to one what belongs to all.”
It may be said, “What matter,—it pleases some,—others
could not part with the idea without pain.” We reply:
“ It impedes progress, it involves the perpetuation of all
abuses ; to protect this dogma of the deity of Jesus we
must have creeds, articles, complicated theologies,
anathemas, persecutions, and priesthoods; we must dis
courage astronomy because it reminds of God’s immen
sity, and reject geology because it proclaims this world’s
antiquity. The doctrine cannot be proved out of the
Scripture, therefore, sooner or later, its advocates must
fall back upon the Church. The orthodox divines argue
that the doctrine of the deity of Jesus is very consoling
and beneficial because it brings God nearer to us. The
Roman Catholic replies: “Not at all so, unless you
admit that he still dwells amongst us in the Host on the
altar.” The orthodox Protestants say: “ We cannot
believe that God is contained in a little gilt box, or
carried about in a clergyman’s waistcoat pocket.” The
Roman Catholic replies, “ How inconsistent, since you
already believe that He was once contained in a
manger in a stable and seated on Mary’s lap,
The orthodox say, “ There are some isolated passages
of Scripture which imply the Deity of Jesus.” The
Roman Catholic replies, “ There are as many passages
which insinuate the supremacy of the Pope, the Deity
of the Host, and the everlasting damnation of
unbelievers.” The Roman Catholic says, “We hold
�Is Jesus God?
9
■with you the Athanasian dogma; our Church is
the chief upholder of the Deity of Jesus; in the
Church of England you have bishops, priests, and very
many people who deny it; the Dissenters are not always
clearly and persistently orthodox on the subject, all the
advocates of free thought reject it, the German successors
of Luther either deny it or explain it away; in this
Church of the Pope it is guarded with a vigilance and
anxiety nowhere else to be found.” But the Roman
Church is also the avowed enemy of all progress, of all
liberty, of all science, of all mental and moral independ
ence. Thus the dogma of the Deity of Jesus stands
as a barrier against all the progress, the liberties and
the education of mankind.
4thly,—Results prove the falsity of the dogma. The
God of the Universe, 1,800 years ago, was born into a
Jewish family, lived amongst people who did not find
out that he was God, his mother ordered him about and
reproved him, his friends and disciples argued with
him, contradicted him, invited him, and went out to
dinner with him—but they knew not that he was
their Creator. In distress we fly to God ; the disciples
were in distress, but they fled away from Jesus.
And the results at the present time, what are they ?
The Jews are supposed to have possessed prophecies
to enable them to discern Jesus as their God. The
8,000,000 Jews still reject him as even a Messiah, and
as to the supposed prophecy of him in Isaiah as God,
they say that the English translation is so maliciously
distorted that an educated Hebrew boy scorns such
dishonest perversions of the sacred books of his nation.
In the East, when after six centuries the dogma of the
deity of Jesus got established, a new religion arose to
denounce it as an idolatry, and 120,000,000 of Mahommedans as a protest against such an idolatry, invoke
the one universal, all-pervading God, when, day by day,
His name is proclaimed from the minaret of a hundred
thousand mosques. One million Parsees still, as in the
�IO
Is Jesus God?
days of old, proclaim the One God. This God-Jesus,
created by Greek and Boman Bishops, has never won
belief amidst the 120,000,000 of the Brahminical
religion, or amongst the 189,000,000, of Pagans, or
amongst the 483,000,000 of Buddhists, His deity is
only partially admitted amidst the 171,000,000 of
Protestants, though strenuously maintained by the
182,000,000 of those who declare that, through the
Pope, this modern God alone commands. What a
success for a Deity !
But, 5thly,—What says History ? The orthodox
teachers tell us now, that the deity of Jesus is the one
great feature of Christianity, that on it rests the essen
tial dogmas of the atonement and of a vicarious re
demption from an eternal hell.
We turn to the first sermons of the first propagators
of Christianity. St Paul propounds Christianity at
Lystra, amidst a multitude prepared to offer sacrifice to
him, and he does not even name Jesus; but he warned
them to turn from such like vanities (man-worship),
“ to turn to the living God, who made heaven and earth
and the sea, and all things that are therein.” Such was
the teaching necessary for the salvation of Asia Minor—■
nothing about the deity of Jesus. Paul went to Athens,
and on the Hill of Mars, from the very throne of the
Greek philosophy, surrounded by the temples of the
deified men who had become gods of war, of beauty, of
love, of art, and of wisdom, he proclaimed the Chris
tianity deemed sufficient for the salvation of Greece—
but not one word about the deity of Jesus—but, inviting
them to turn from such superstitions, he says : “ Whom
ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you—God
that made the world and all things therein, seeing that
He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples
made with hands, neither is worshipped with men’s
hands ; as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth
to all life, and breath, and all things ; and hath made
of one blood (life) all nations of men for to dwell on
�Is Jesus God?
II
all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times
before appointed and the bounds of their habitation ;
that they should seek the Lord if haply they might feel
after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from
every one of us: for in Him we live and move and have
our being; as certain also of your own poets have said,
For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch, then, as we
are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that
the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven
by art and man’s device. He now commandeth all
men everywhere to repent (reform), because He hath
appointed a day in which He will judge the world in
righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained.”
What was the first sermon ever preached by a
disciple of Jesus ? On the day we now call Whit
Sunday, Peter lifted up his voice, and for the first
time proclaimed Christianity (Acts ii.) He therein
announced that all Christians would have the power of
working miracles, and proclaimed other portents and
prodigies, but uttered not one word as to the deity of
Jesus ; but he solemnly exclaims : “ Ye men of Israel,
hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved
of God, by wicked hands crucified and slain,” &c., and
he ends by proclaiming Jesus to be the Master and the
Messiah, that is “Lord and Christ.” Thus Christianity
could be first solemnly announced to the world without
one word about the deity of Jesus or his atonement.
Any one now preaching that sermon of Peter would be
declared by all to be a Unitarian of the school of Chan
ning, and Priestley, and Belsham. Look at the address
of the first martyr, Stephen (Acts vii.), not one word
.about the deity of Jesus. In Acts ix. read the account
of the supposed miraculous conversion of St Paul.
Jesus is described as appearing to him, but he does not
announce himself as God. The converted Saul preached
to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, or to use the current
Jewish expression, the Son of God, or the Christ—e.g.,
ix. 22—“ Saul increased the more in strength, and
�12
Is Jesus God?
confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving
that this is the Christ.” Why he ought to have proved
that Jesus is the Creator and Supreme God. On the
pages of history we can trace the gradual growth of this
dogma. Platonists, like Philo, had introduced the idea
of a Logos (i.e., Power, or Beason, or Word) dwelling in
the Supreme Being and emanating from Him. That
Platonic notion engrafted itself into Christianity, and
gradually produced the Nicene and Athanasian creeds.
How gradual was the corruption of Christianity we can
perceive by examining the works of Origen, that man of
profound and varied learning, who, after writing many
commentaries on the sacred Scriptures, died a.d. 254.
The Pagan superstition of praying to Jesus had already
spread amongst the ignorant multitude, for Origen, in
his treatise on prayer, says: “ Prayer is never to be
offered to any originated being, not to Christ himself,
but only to the God and Father of all.” For when his
disciples asked him, “ Teach us to pray,” he did not
teach them to pray to himself, but to the Father—con
formably to what he said: “ Why callest thou me good ?
there is none good but one, God the Father.” How
could he say otherwise than, “ Why dost thou pray to
me ? Prayer, as you learn from the Scriptures,is to be
offered to the Father only, to whom I myself pray.”
It is not consistent with reason for those to pray to a
brother who are esteemed worthy of one Father with
him. “You with me, and through me, are to address
your prayer to the Father alone.” Let us, then, at
tending to what was said by Jesus, pray to God with
out any division as to the mode of prayer. But are we
not divided if some pray to the Father and some to the
Son. Those who pray to the Son fall into a gross error
through want of judgment and examination.” Such
was the teaching of a man unrivalled among Christians
for his virtues and his wisdom, whose death was the
result of the tortures he endured for his faith. As
Christians deteriorated morally they became addicted to
�Is 'Jesus God?
T3
sophistry, superstition, and Pagan imitations ; the dogma
of the deity of Jesus gained ground till it was, at length,
formally established by Bishops who deemed their
deliberations inspired; once established with the help
of numerous cruel persecutions, and in defiance of
innumerable protests, it was received by the Gothic con
verts, and afterwards by the first Protestants on autho
rity ; but, whenever Protestants carry out their princi
ples, and inquire, we find the most illustrious rejecting
the deity of Jesus, witness, amongst so many others,
Milton,* John Locke, Sir Isaac Newton, and, at the
present time, almost all the leaders in science, in philo
sophy, in criticism, and in literature.
6thly,—The dogma is opposed to Jesus Christ; it is
a libel upon his moral character. If he was God, he
ought not to have said “ The Father is greater than I; ”
“ I go to my God and your God.” He ought not to
have prayed and to have said in his agony, “ Remove
from me this cup, nevertheless not what I will but what
Thou wilt; ” and, with his last breath, “ Father into
thy hands I commit my spirit ; ” “ My doctrine is not
mine but His that sent me; ” “ As my Father hath
taught me I speak these things ; ” “I seek not my own
glory, but I honour my Father; ” “To sit on my right
hand and on my left is not mine to give ; ” I come not
to do my own will but the will of Him that sent me—I
do nothing of myself.” He was tempted, he prayed to
God, he gave thanks to God: “ Father, I thank Thee
that Thou hast heard me.” He declared his ignorance
of important matters—“ Of that day knoweth no man,
not the angels, neither the son, but my Father only; ”
“ My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ? ”
“In that day ye shall ask me nothing.” The life, the
conduct, the language of Jesus combine in showing him
to be man. The advocates of his deity adduce expres
sions which on other occasions he applies equally to all
his brethren.
* Milton’s last work is a scriptural argument to disprove
the Trinity, and the Deity of Jesus.
�14
Is Jesus God f
The Jesuits argue that it is lawful to* conceal the
greatest truths and the gravest matters, and to act as if
they were not—for, they say,—“Jesus was God, he
concealed his Deity, and by that concealment deceived
everybody—and we ought to imitate him.” Their argu
ment is logical; the immorality can only be censured by
those who deny the deity of Jesus. If it is replied he
was both God and man, whatever does not suit for one
nature must be applied to the other, we say “ Where is
that evasive doctrine of contradiction ever stated,”
when by Jesus ? by what apostle ? Nowhere; it was
the sophistical invention of subtle Greek bishops when
they had determined on the deification of Jesus, and
had to reconcile their superstition with the life and
words of Jesus.
7thly,—The dogma, if admitted, is destructive of the
character of all the New Testament writers. Even
were we to admit as genuine the passages now univer
sally admitted to be spurious, such as the three witnesses
in St John, even accepting the mistranslations of King
James’s version as if correct, accepting as of apostolic
age what is falsely entitled the Gospel of St John,—all
that can then be said in defence of the deity of Jesus is
that a few passages here and there exalt Jesus very
much, and are considered by many to point to his
divinity. But as such passages are deemed by others
no proof at all, and as the entire tenor and drift of each
writer is quite opposed to the deity, it would have been
most dishonest of a writer to have introduced so trans
cendently important a dogma only in a casual incidental
way, and never accompanied with statements calculated,
if not to convince of the truth of the dogma, at least to
show that it was held. The adorers of the God-Jesus
now do not thus convey their teaching, they do not
incidentally insinuate the dogma amidst entire pages of
an opposite tenor; but they insist on it as the one
essential feature of Christianity; they propound it in
the minutest mode ; they anathematise all who cannot
�Is Jesus God ?
*5
believe it; they address prayers and litanies to Jesus as
God ; they supplement the scriptures with explanations
and history with false statements; and by complicated
controversies they deem it possible to prove what is
declared to be essential to the salvation of all.
My brethren, the deifier and adorer of Jesus, the
deifier and adorer of Buddha, is doubtless, if sincere
and good, as pleasing to the Supreme Being as the
adorer of God. Salvation consists in truthfulness of
speech and act, in goodness, in earnestness, in selfdevotion to the highest thoughts we know.
The adorers of a deified Jew are doubtless as pleasing
to God as those who adore their Creator, so long as
their adoration is the truthful expression of their
thought; when it ceases to be such, their adoration is
an immorality.
But strive to hasten on the time when the poor souls
of our brethren shall no longer be lacerated with the
conscientious endeavour to accept as essential what they
cannot prove.
True religion needs no critical and learned arguments,
no gods who have to be proved by texts and supported
by arduous apologies; the living truth is in the con
science and the soul of man. Be true to yourself and
you will be true to God. Let worthy ecclesiastics prove
out their gods ; we will be content if we can love some
what better the God and Father of all, and in Him love
and serve all our brethren. This short life will soon be
over: ’ere it has passed away may we have helped for
ward some we love to thoughts more holy, more truthful,
more happy, more grand, more beautiful than super
stition.—Amen. So be it.
��NOTES.
.
(1) The aggregations which cluster around the memory of a
great character vary with the traditions and characteristics of
the people who are the grateful recipients of his benefits. If
Jesus had been born in Athens, Rome, Mexico, or India, the
mythological legends created by credulous affection to enshrine
his life, and embellish his teaching, would have taken their
character from some superstition or philosophy pervading in
the locality. Early biographies published in other countries
would, in all probability, combine their national conceptions
with those of the country of his birth. Thus in the three
earliest Gospels we find Jewish actions and teaching attributed
to Jesus, and genealogies tracing his descent from David and
Abraham. He is a Jew of Jewish origin, a miraculous Messiah,
a Theist teaching the pure monotheism which was the highest
development of Jewish religious thought. Those three Gos
pels, although varying in many important details, are similar
in general tone and scope. The Fourth Gospel not only intro
duces special variations and contradictions, but is essentially
different in its conception of the teaching and spirit of Jesus.
That Gospel, first named by Irenaeus, who died a.d. 203, was
probably compiled by a Christian of Ephesus, perhaps John
the Presbyter, with the help of traditions, and perhaps MSS.,
bearing the name of John the Evangelist. Ephesus was one
of the towns in which dominated the mystical Platonic Philo
sophy, as modified by Philo the Jew, about the time of the
birth of Jesus; therefore the writer surrounds Jesus with two
aggregations, the Judaic and the Platonic. Our Poets
personify “Fear,” “Hope,” “Charity,” “Envy,” “Melan
choly.” The Platonists not only personified, but considered
that all existing things had an original idea substantially
B
�18
Notes.
abiding in the mind of God, in whom was moreover a faculty
•or power whereby He arranged the ideas after which He
moulded all things. The “ Logos ” (i.e., “ Power,” “ Wisdom,”
-or “Word”) was this faculty existing in the Divine Soul, and
in different degrees manifesting itself in great and good men.
Thus Philo calls Moses “ the Divine Logos,” the “ law-giving
Logos,” the “ supplicating Logos (alluding to his intercession
for the Jews).” Aaron he calls the “Sacred Logos.” He
repeatedly calls the Jewish High Priest the “Logos.” He calls
good men the “ Logos.” The attribute in God which fills,
inspires, and manifests itself in men, he thus describes “The
Logos is the eldest creation of God, the Eternal Father,
eldest son, God’s image, mediator between God and the world,
the highest angel, the second God, the High Priest, the Recon
ciler, Intercessor for the world and men, whose manifestation is
especially visible in the history of the Jewish people.” And Philo
thus addresses his Jewish readers : “ If you are not yet worthy
to be denominated a Son of God, be earnest to put on the
graces of His First Begotten Logos, the most ancient . . .
for if we are not prepared to be esteemed children of
God, we may, at all events, be thus related to the most
Holy Logos . . . for the most ancient Logos is the image
of God.” Philo personifies “ Wisdom and Goodness,” but
he does not seem to regard them as real Persons, but only as
“ Ideas ” in the divine mind, which breathe forth into the soul
of men. Thus a Platonic Jew writing a memoir of Jesus
amongst the disciples of Philo in Ephesus, amongst people
familiar with the language regarding wisdom in “ Ecclesiasticus,” “ Wisdom,” &c. Writing, moreover, with a controversial
object, as he affirms (ch. xx. 31), instead of giving any genea
logy or nativity of Jesus, commences his narrative with the
verses we may perhaps best render thus: “ In the beginning was
the wisdom, and the wisdom was with God, and God was the
wisdom. This wasin the beginningwithGod. All things through
it rose into being, and without it arose not even one thing which
has arisen. In it is life, and the life was the light of men, and the
light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness did not
�Notes.
J9
apprehend it............................................ The true light which
enlightens every man, continued coming into the world. . .
. . It came to its own peculiar [home] and its own peculiar
[people] received it not................................... And the wisdom
became flesh [was manifested in a man], and tabernacled
amongst us.............................No one has ever seen God: the
only begotten son [i.e., Wisdom, the Logos], who is upon the
bosom of the Father, declared Him.”
How the language reminds us of Philo’s apostrophe to wis
dom or Logos, as “ the assessor of God prior to all creatures,
a needful companion of deity, joint originator with Him of all
things.” Origen, who died a.d. 253, and Eusebius, who died
A d. 340, notice that as there is no article in the Greek before
the word God, the signification is “ and the wisdom was a
God,” an epithet frequently applied in the Sacred' writings to
designate judges, authorised teachers, commissioned rulers,
angels, and those Beings adored by Gentile nations. (Ex.gr.~)
“ God judgeth amongst the gods,” “ I have said, ye are gods,”
“Thou shalt not revile the gods.” Again, Origen, although
maintaining the pre-existence of all souls, and that emanations
from the deity, like the rays of light from the sun penetrate
into the dark chambers of the human heart, to enlighten and
to abide, and believing that Jesus must have received such
divine in-dwelling light of wisdom, yet disclaims utterly the
superstition which was then rapidly advancing, and which pro
fessed to limit such to Jesus as exceptional and exclusive of
others. “ The great body of those who are considered as
believers, knowing nothing but Jesus Christ, thinking that the
Logos appearing in a man is the whole of the Logos, are
acquainted with Christ only according to the flesh.”
The Platonic idea of the Logos moulding the souls of good
men and dwelling in them, was often interwoven with the
Pythagorean doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, and in
that combination is attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
(though never in the earlier Gospels) ex. gr. John viii. 58.
.
(2) There are many passages adduced from the OldTestament
to confirm the popular idea of the deification of Jesus ; someB2
�1O
Notes.
times by adaptation, sometimes by referring to Jesus, passages
wherein the Jewish nation is personified and individualised.
Thus, in Isaiah, all the words applied by Trinitarian commen
tators to a suffering Messiah, regard the sufferings of “ God’s
servant Israel,” the Jewish nation’s sufferings “ expiating ” the
national sins, “ moving God to compassion,” and preluding an
immediate and triumphant restoration. In such sense those
passages were understood by the Jews at the tjme and since,
and it is only by artifices of mistranslation that the meaning is
perverted, ex. gr., “ a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’*
should be “the young woman ” (probably Isaiah’s wife) “ will
conceive and bear a son.” The birth of his other sons, and
the names imparted to them, had signified events just to occur,
the birth of this one, named Emanuel, was to signify the
speedy deliverence of the Jews from the invading kings.
.
(3) A few detached and casual texts are relied on by Trini
tarians as the basis of their belief in the deity of Jesus, ex. gr.
Thomas the Apostle, who did not believe in the bodily resur
rection, is described as seeing Jesus alive, and, just as we ex
claim in surprise “ Good God,” so Thomas exclaimed “ My
Master! my God.” The Apostle who had, up to that moment,
supposed the statement of the resurrection to be a mere “ idle
woman’s tale,” cannot, by feeling the mangled side of Jesus,
have all at once arrived at a belief heretofore unexpected and
unasked, namely, that Jesus was not only the Messiah but the
God of the Universe. People acquainted with ecclesiastical
history do not attach much importance to the “ traditions ” of
the first six centuries, whereby the deity of Jesus was esta
blished—but Keble, in his Oxford Sermons, says most truly:
“ I need hardly remind you of the unquestioned historical fact
that the very Nicene Creed itself, to which, perhaps, of all
formulae we are most indebted for our sound belief in the proper
divinity of the Son of God—even this creed had its origin,
not from the Scriptures, but from tradition.”
We now derive our conceptions of God from the human soul.
God is to the universe what our soul is to our body; therefore the
higher our idea of man the higher our idea of God. But nations in
�Notes.
21
their infancy worshipped God piecemeal, or portions of nature
or a human form. Hence Paganism, Brahmahism, and Budd
hism had their incarnations, Judaism had no incarnation, but
Jehovah was regarded as a man who could talk, eat, walk
about, be angry and pleased, and take sides like a man.
When the Greek and Latin Bishops had, after some cen
turies, got the dogma into a definite form, the Scriptures
provided a few questionable passages which were useful for
the defence of a foregone conclusion. If we include amongst
such the passages interpolated, corrupted, and mistranslated,
the only subject for wonder is that so tremendous a dogma
should have so little to appeal to. Amongst the corrupted
texts, we would allude to 1 Tim. iii. 16, wherein the word
“ God ” is spurious. In Acts xx. 28, where the true reading is
“ Church of the Master ” and not Church of “ God.”
Amongst mistranslations, we might advert to Phil. ii. 5,
“ thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is
deemed by Trinitarians one of their very few decisive passages,
though even as it stands it is not worth much, for it would
be absurd to speak of “ God thinking it not robbery to be
equal with God.” The expression that Christ was “ in the
form of God,” or “ as God,” or the “ image of God,” does not
seem to imply anything more than when it is said to a child,
“ You must look on your parents as representing God to you.”
On the dogma of the deity of Jesus rests the Papacy, the
sacramental system, ecclesiastical exclusiveness, the denun
ciations of I Heresy,” the atonement, and all the numerous
doctrines which form one or other of the forms of orthodoxy ;
and yet that stupendous dogma rests upon only a few inci
dental texts.
(4) Prayer to Jesus is nowhere enjoined in the New Testa
ment ; and yet it could not, according to the orthodox theory,
be a matter of indifference. It was either to be done, or it
was not to be done. The introduction of a new object for
prayer was a vast change; it demanded special directions, so
that the two objects of prayer might retain what were proper
for each: no such explanations exist; no precept for its
�22
Notes,
observance. There are allusions to those blessings of which
Jesus Christ was deemed the minister to men—ex gr. “ Grace
through Jesus Christ,” “ the Grace of Jesus Christ.” There
are allusions to the interest which Jesus was supposed to
exhibit towards his disciples on earth, but nothing implying
prayer to him as God. There is no evidence that the' las t
words of Stephen, in which he prayed for his murderers, were
addressed to Christ.
But one portion of his speech was spoken to Jesus, who
(according to the narrative) was standing before him, and as
his friend and master could be asked therefore to receive his
dying breath.
(5) Suppose Jesus to have been miraculously born, to have
healed the sick, raised the dead, ascended into heaven, and
helped his followers from his heavenly abode—such miracles
would not prove him to be any greater than those men to
whom similar powers are attributed iu the Old Testament.
(6) All Religions surround their Infant Gods with similar
legends. Thus, in the sacred books of the Buddhists, we read
that, when Buddha, the God-man was born, “the Holy King,
the Grand Being, turning His eyes towards the East, regarded
the vast host of the angels, Brahmas and Devas, Asuras,
Granharvas, Repamas, and Garudas, and they rained flowers
and offerings upon him, and bowed in adoration, praising him
and crying, “ Behold the excellent Lord, to whom none can be
compared, to whom there is no superior; and the ten thousand
worlds quaked, and the Universe was illumined with an
exceeding bright light.” Of Confucius it is written, “ He may
be compared to heaven and earth in their supporting and
containing all things; he may be compared to the four seasons
in their alternating progress, to the sun and moon in their
successive shining. He is the Equal of Heaven. Call him an
Ideal man, how earnest is he! Call him an abyss, how deep I
Call him Heaven, how vast 1 ” When Mohammed was born, we
are told in the sacred legends of the Moslems “ that a bright
light issued from the breast of his mother, illumined all Arabia,
and then, penetrating into Paradise, caused 70,000 palaces of
�Notes.
23
pearls and rubies to spring into being; that, when he was
three years of age, two angels opened his side, took out his
heart, pressed from it the black drops of sin, replacing them
with the light of prophecy.” When Jesus was born, we are
told, in the sacred legends of the Christians, that “ a star left
its station in the heavens to indicate his birthplace, kings of
unknown lands travelled, with miraculous speed, to lay gifts
at his feet, angels filled the air with their songs, making the
mountain sides radiant with light. That child of Nazareth is
described, in the theological legends of later followers, as
eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, sinless, as
Creator and Preserver of the Universe, as the head of the
Spiritual World, forgiver of sins, final Judge and Rewarder,
in all things equal with God.” Thus does superstition com
press God into a man, and elevate a man into a God.
(7) Since men have learned the vastness of the Creation,
and the antiquity of the world, the dogma of the deity of
Jesus has become more incredible. Scholars admit that it
cannot be proved out of the Scriptures in any way calculated
to satisfy those who know the ignorance existing as to the
authorship of those Scriptures, their authority, originals, and
translations. Roman Catholics admit that it is impossible to
prove anything certain out of the Scriptures, therefore they
assert that the deity of Je3us, like all other dogmas, can be
only accepted on the authority of the Church ; but the autho
rity of the Church has declared that infallibility rests in the
mind of the Pope whenever he intends to use his infallibility.
But how is the infallibility of the Pope proved ? By the
words of Jesus Christ. And yet those very words can be
accepted by Greeks, Protestants, and Theists, who cannot see
in them any assertion of the modern Roman doctrine. Thus
infallibility rests upon disputed texts in books of uncertain
date and uncertain origin; therefore it can never become, to
any individual, anything more than a probable opinion liable
to error—an opinion which, only three years ago, was deemed
by all the most cultured Roman Catholics to be absurd,
unproved, dangerous, unhistoric, uncatholic.
�24
Notes.
(8) From the intuitions of the human mind ; from its
reasonings, feelings, and aspirations ; from its sense of right
and wrong; from all these combined in the experiences of
mankind, and presented to us in the history of humanity, we
can obtain a Religion of Life and of Hope, of discipline and
trustful repose; such, held with diffidence, with earnestness,
with reverence, with fortitude, and with tenderness, revealing
itself in harmony with science, and with our highest moral
and spiritual aspirations, gathering into itself from all
Churches, Sects, and Scriptures, whatever is of universal
application, will keep evolving itself to the soul of man, and
presenting to us as much of certainty as is obtainable in the
ordinary affairs of life, why demand for the future a certainty
of a kind essentially differing from what is adequate for our
daily actions and our daily hopes.
The only theory of God’s moral government which conforms
to our sense of justice in presence of the various opposing
beliefs held by men equally good, truth loving, and anxious,
is that what is really important is attainable by all—namely,
to be truthful in word and act to whatever we think, to strive
to think as correctly as we can, and to practise according to
our light and means, the best to which we see our way. Such
is the best and the happiest religion.
The Author of this sermon will be glad to communi
cate to inquirers, books adapted to aid their researches
into matters which could only be glanced at in these
pages.
The reader is earnestly advised to study the works
of James Martineau, Francis Newman, Theodore Parker,
Hennell, Frances Power Cobbe, Dr Vance Smith, and
those catalogued on the following pages, which can be
procured from the Publisher.
�INDEX
TO
THOMAS SCOTT’S PUBLICATIONS,
alphabetically arranged.
The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage sta/mps to Mr Thomas
Scott, 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Boad, Upper Norwood,
London, S.N.
Price.
Post-free.
s. cl.
ABBOT, FRANCIS E„ Editor of ‘Index,’ Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Impeachment
of Christianity. With Letters from Miss Frances
P. Cobbe and Professor F. W. Newman, giving their Reasons for not
calling themselves Christians
-OS
Truths for the Times
•
•
-03
ANONYMOUS.
A.I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II.,
and III. 6d. each Part
-16
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible
- 1 0
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism
- 0 6
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of
Necessity”
-06
On Public Worship
-03
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give
Answers ------01
Sacred History as
a
Branch of Elementary Education.
Part I.—Its Influence on the Intellect. Part II.—Its Influence on the
Development of the Conscience. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
The Church and its Reform. A Reprint - 1 0
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth
- 0 6
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss
- 0 6
The Twelve Apostles
-06
Via Catholica; or, Passages from the Autobiography of a Country
Parson. Part I. -13
Woman’s Letter -03
BARRISTER, A.
Notes
on
Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ
-
-
- 0 6
-
-
- 0 3
BASTARD, THOMAS H0RL00K.
Scepticism
and
Social Justice
-
-
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications,
11
Price.
Post-free.
BENEFICED CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation - 1 1
The Evangelist and the Divine - 1 0
The Gospel of the Kingdom
- 0 6
BENTHAM, JEREMY.
The Church
of
England Catechism Examined. A Reprint
-10
BERNSTEIN, A.
Origin of the Legends of
Critically Examined -
Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob
-10
-
-
=
BROOK, W. 0. CARR.
Beason versus Authority BROWN, GAMALIEL.
An Appeal to the Preachers
Sunday Lyrics
The New Doxology
•
and
-
-
.
-
-03
Creeds -
-
- 0 3
-03
- 0 3
of all the
-
-
-
-
CARROLL, Rev. W. G., Rector of St Bride’s, Dublin.
The Collapse
of the
by the Orthodox -
Faith; or, the Deity of Christ as now taught
-
-
-
-
-
-06
CLARK, W. G., M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church
of England ”
-06
CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
An Examination of Canon Liddon’s Bampton Lectures
Letter and Spirit Rational Piety and Prayers for Fine Weather
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil The Question o*f Method, as affecting Religious Thought
-
- 0 6
-06
- 0 3
- 0 6
- 0 3
COBBE, Miss F. P.
Letter
on
Christian Name. (See Abbot)
CONWAY, MONCURE D.
The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. With Portrait
The Voysey Case -
-
- 0 6
-06
COUNTRY PARSON, A.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and
the Creeds,—Their Sense and their
Non-Sense. Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part
- 1 6
COUNTRY VICAR, A.
Criticism the Restoration of Christianity, being a Review of a
Paper by Dr Lang
-
The Bible for Man, not Man
-
for the
-
Bible
-
-06
- 0 6
-
-
-
-
•
-
CRANBROOK, The late Rev. JAMES.
On the Formation of Religious Opinions On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology
The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought
0 3
0 3
0 3
F. H. I.
Spiritual Pantheism
-
-
-
-06
FOREIGN CHAPLAIN.
The Efficacy
of
Prayer. A Letter to Thomas Scott
-
- 0 3
�iii
Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
Price.
Post-free.
s. d.
FORMER ELDER IN A SCOTCH CHURCH.
On Religion
....
-06
GELDART, Rev. E. M.
The Living God
-
’
-
-
-
•
-0 3
-
-
-
-
-
-03
-
-04
GRAHAM, A. D., and F. H.
On Faith
-
-
HANSON, Sir R. D., Chief-Justice of South Australia.
Science and Theology
-
-
-
-
HARE, The Right Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of
Chichester.
The Difficulties
the Scriptures
and
Discouragements which Attend the Study of
-
-
-
-
-
-
-06
HINDS, SAMUEL, D.D., late Bishop of Norwich.
Annotations on the Lord’s Prayer. (See Scott’s Practical Remarks)
Another Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely
on, if we cannot Rely on the Bible ? ” (See Professor Newman’s
Reply) *
-06
A Reply to the Question, “ Apart from Supernatural Revela
tion, what is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death ? ” 0 6
A Reply to the Question, “ Shall I Seek Ordination in the
Church of England?”
- 0 6
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. Part I., is. Part II., Is. 6d. 2 6
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend
- 0 6
HOPPS, Rev. J. PAGE.
Thirty-Nine Questions
Portrait -
on
-
-
the
Thirty-Nine Articles.
-
-
-
-
With
-0 3
JEVONS, WILLIAM.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the
Present Age. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine
. Revelation Considered
- 0 6
The Prayer Book adapted to the Age - 0 3
KALISCH, M., Ph.D.
of the Past and the Future. Reprinted from Part I. of
his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait
- 1 0
Theology
KIRKMAN, The Rev. THOMAS P., Rector of Croft, Warrington.
Church Cursing and Atheism
-
- 1 0
On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. With Portrait. 6d. each Part 1 0
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. In Three Parts. 6d. each Part - 1 6
LAKE, J. W.
The Mythos of the Ark
-
-
-
-
-'-06
LA TOUCHE, J. D., Vicar of Stokesay, Salop.
The Judgment
Mr Voysey
of the
-
Committee of Council in the Case of
-
-
-
-
-
-03
-
-
-06
- 0 6
-
- 1 0
LAYMAN, A, and M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin.
Law and the Creeds
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible
-
M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Pleas
for
Free Inquiry. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
iv
Price.
Post-free.
MAOFIE, MATT.
Religion Viewed
Universe
as
-
Devout Obedience to the Daws
-
-
-
-
of the
-
- 0 G
MAITLAND, EDWARD.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education; or, the Use and Abuse
-
of the Bible in the Schoolroom
-
-
- 1 6
- 0 6
- 0 6
Revelation -
- 0 6
-
How to Complete the Reformation. With Portrait
The Utilisation of the Church Establishment
-
M.P., Letter by.
The Dean of Canterbury
on
Science
and
NEALE, EDWARD VANSITTART.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ?
- 0 6
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Intro
ductory Remarks
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Mythical Element in Christianity The New Bible Commentary and the Ten Commandments
-10
- 1 0
-03
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
Against Hero-Making in Religion
- o 6
James and Paul .
-00
Letter on Name Christian. (See Abbot) On the Causes of Atheism With Portrait - 0 6
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism; and On the Galla
Religion
-06
Reply to a Letter from an Evangelical Lay Preacher
- 0 3
The Bigot and the Sceptic
- 0 6
The Controversy about Prayer - 0 3
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines
- 0 3
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism
- 0 7
The True Temptation of Jesus. With Portrait
- 0 6
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil
- 0 3
OLD GRADUATE.
Remarks
on
Paley’s Evidences -
-
-
-
- 0 6
-
- 0 6
OXLEE, the Rev. JOHN.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy
-
-
PADRE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
The Unity
of the
Faith among
all
Nations
-
-
- 0 6
-
-
- 0 6
PARENT AND TEACHER, A.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ?
PHYSICIAN, A.
by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and
Philosophical. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part - 1
The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of
A Dialogue
our Age. Part I.—Genesis -
-
-
-
0
- 1 6
PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the
Clergy of the Church of England
-
-
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing
-
on
ROBERTSON, JOHN, Coupar-Angus.
Intellectual Liberty
The Finding of the Book -
ROW, A. JYRAM.
Christianity
and
-
-
-
Education in India.
St George’s Hall, London, Nov. 12,1871
-
-
Education
- 0 6
0 6
o 6
-20
A Lecture delivered at
0 6
�Index to Thomas Scott’s Publications.
Price.
Post-free.
s. d.
SCOTT, THOMAS.
Basis of a New Reformation
-09
Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian
Commentators. In Two Parts. 6d. each Part
-
1 0
-
-
Miracles and Prophecies -06
Original Sin
-06
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer”
- 0 6
The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in
its Bearing on the Truth of Christianity
- 0 6
The English Life of Jesus. A New Edition
- 4 4
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society - 0 6
STATHAM, F. REGINALD.
Rational Theology. A Lecture
-
-
-
-
- 0 3
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and
Defended by T. L. Strange
- 0 6
Clerical Integrity
-03
Communion with God
-03
The Bennett Judgment
-03
The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?”
0 6
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed
2 6
SZMONDS, J. ADDINGTON.
The Renaissance
of
Modern Europe
-
-
-
03
-
TAYLOR, P. A., M.P.
Realities
--------
VOYSEY, The Rev. CHARLES.
A Lecture on Rationalism
A Lecture on the Bible An Episode in the History
On Moral Evil
-
-
of
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 0 6
-06
Religious Liberty. With Portrait 0 6
-
-06
W. E. B.
An Examination
of
Some Recent Writings
about Immortality
- 0 6
WHEELWRIGHT, the Rev. GEORGE.
Three Letters on the Voysey Judgment and the Christian
Evidence Society’s Lectures - 0 6
WILD, GEO. J., LL.D.
Sacerdotalism
-
«
-
0 6
WORTHINGTON, The Rev. W. R.
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion -06
Two Essays : On the Interpretation of the Language, of The Old
Testament, and Believing without Understanding - 0 6
ZERFFI, G. G., Ph.D.,
Natural Phenomena and their Influence on Different Religious Systems 0 3
�Since printing the preceding List the follozving Pamphlets
have been published.
Price.
Post-free.
BENEFICED CLERGYMAN, WIFE OF A.
On the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth. Parts I. and II. Price Six
pence each Part -
-
-
-
-
-
-10
-
- 0 3
MACKAY, CHARLES, LL.D.
The Souls of
the
-
Children
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
On
the
Historical Depravation
of
Christianity
PHYSICIAN, A.
The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of our
Age. Part II.—Exodus, Section I. -
-
-
-
-06
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
The Christian Evidence Society
-
-
-
- 0 3
SUFFIELD, the Rev. ROBERT RODOLPH.
The Resurrection -
-
-
-
-
.
-03
-03
Prayer -
-
.
-
-
-0 6
CANTAB, A.
Jesus versus Christianity
DUPUIS, from the French of.
-
-
-
-
- 0 6
Christianity a Form of the great Solar Myth -
-
- 0 9
-
-06
Is Jesus God?
-
W. E. B.
The Province
of
BRAY, CHARLES.
Illusion and Delusion
-
-
-
-
-
-
ANON.
Our First Century
Via Catholica. Part II.
-
-
-06
-13
-
MACLEOD, JOHN.
Religion :
its
Place in Human Culture -
e
-
- 0 6
PRINTED EY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET, W.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is Jesus God? a sermon preached on Trinity Sunday, at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, near London
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Suffield, Robert Rodolph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24, v. [1] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4 and the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher's list on numbered pages at the end. Printed by G.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, Haymarket, London. Includes 8 pages of notes.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4867
CT122
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Is Jesus God? a sermon preached on Trinity Sunday, at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, near London), 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
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d5ad1da3deeb453371f87a808d689bc.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=NjDUiXku9-%7EmMrrOsx-cCQFBq4P9ktkfisMM33UMC%7EHHw-e3OsSBDJR3NnTOrIKdX7TuJbUDGc05PQlhuX2-OheWigMlfqZ6cJd4TZZe8FB1wO-%7EkYSSylc7FXe54TT%7E5rEu1dVuFFN67B2uF5eWjG%7EYws3LrfeuA3rUjb6ajPiLsLh-FZQvxhuXgVWPj-vNWlQxcA5jbMtXnOqgHNDSVP7A4JsrdczxQ4mpON9jMsD58khDqX7llV51l5KJdbN1b4Oj0-CB2J4c%7EKGaVWrM653ZRhR%7ErskzcvH7jKkpHjr2r16yHEDAvfkyi5MVP6bXCJ%7E4-SQCqdPkbtPdDnCQwg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d0cd0ef6f3a68d561f563863443114ff
PDF Text
Text
CHRIST AND OSIRIS
BY
J. S.
STUART-GLENNIE,
M. A.
Reprinted by permission from,
‘IN THE MORNINGLAND.’
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�CHRIST
AND
OSIRIS.
“ Thou hast conquered, 0 pale Galilean; the world has grown
grey from thy breath ;
We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fulness
of death.
0 lips that the live blood faints in, the leavings of racks and
rods!
O ghastly glories of saints, dead limbs of gibbeted gods !
Though all men abase them before you in spirit, and all knees
bend,
I kneel not, neither adore you, but standing, look to the end.
*****
Though before thee the throned Cytherean be fallen, and
hidden her head,
Yet thy kingdom shall pass, Galilean, thy dead shall go down
to the dead.” *
eflecting- here, on the Temple-roof at
Karnak, on the general results of our
Egyptian studies, we are first of all struck
with what I may call the Christian character of
Osirianism. But before proceeding to point this
out, and to state the hypothesis which this Christian
character of Osirianism suggests, it may be desir
able to offer a few remarks on the outward, and
hence more vulgarly appreciated characteristics of
the Egyptian religion. For, in amazement at any
likening of Osirianism to Christianism, or of Christianism to Osirianism, many readers may, as if in
R
* Swinburne, Poems and Ballads, Hymn to Proserpine, pp. 79-80.
�6
Christ and Osiris.
settlement of any suggestion even of a causal relation
between Osirianism and Christianism, ask, ‘ Were not
the Egyptians, as a matter of fact, idolaters, and
worshippers, indeed, of the most grotesque and
monstrous idols ? ’ But let us understand what
idolatry means. Possibly, you who put this question
may be more of an idolater than were the ancient
Egyptians when they first created their Gods.
Idolatry is ceremonial worship when the meaning of
the ceremonies and symbols is lost. We are helped
to the understanding of this by the study of language,
in its first formations. Names, as a class of signs,
*
are themselves but a kind of symbols. In the
formation of a language, they are at first uttered
certainly not without a meaning ; they certainly are
the attempt to denote some thing, or express some
want, hitherto nameless, unutterable. Yet these
names, at first so meaningful, may in time so com
pletely lose their original meaning, as to become the
terminations of a declension, f So symbols, animal
headed deities, and others. What if the symbol, in
later times, so lost its meaning as to be itself wor
shipped ? Originally it had carried the mind from
itself to that which it signified. And as, in Lan
guage, ‘ the formation of substantive nouns is the
first stage of personifying God
so, in Religion,
the creation of symbols is the first stage of idolatry.
We shall hereafter have occasion to consider idol
creation more fully, and from other points of view.
Here I will only remark, that a reference to the
idolatry of the Egyptians is unfortunate, if it is
intended thereby to disprove the likeness of Osirian* ‘ A name is a word taken at pleasure to serve for a mark which may
raise in our mind a thought like to some thought we had before,
and which, being pronounced to others, may be to them a sign of what
thought the speaker had, or had not, before in his mind.’—Hobbes,
Computation or Logic, ch. it., cited by Mill, System of Logic, vol. II. p. 23.
t See Miiller, Lectures on the Science of Language.
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 566.
�Christ and Osiris.
7
ism to Christianism. For we shall find that it is
just in comparing these two Creeds in this matter of
idolatry, that — when we set Yahvehism between
them—their likeness comes out most strongly—the
religion of Abraham, whether as Judaism, or as
Mohammedanism, acting as a foil, and bringing out
with startling clearness, at once, the Osirian cha
racter of Christianism, and the Christian character of
Osirianism.
2. But is the Animal-worship of the Egyptians next
objected against any comparison of Osirianism with
Christianism, or any hypothesis with respect to the
origination of the latter in a transformation of the
former ? Well, it is admitted that that exaggerated
care for animals which becomes a superstitious wor
ship of them is not a feature of Christian religious
emotion. But in the Animal-worship which—pro
bably derived from an aboriginal African element in
the population — was, soon after the time of
*
Menes, incorporated with Osirianism throughout the
Empire, there should seem to have been an idea
which modern Science tends more and more clearly
to establish—the identity, namely, of the principle of
life in all its manifestations.f ‘ And what is this,’
asks Bunsen, £ but a specific adaptation of that con
sciousness of the divinity of Nature, which is implied
in all the religious consciousness of the Old World ?’J
The doctrine of transmigration thus became a sacred
link between animal and human life. And ‘ the
community between the human and anima,! soul
being once admitted, we can understand how the
Egyptians a^ last arrived at the idea of worshipping
in animals a living manifestation of Divinity.’§ But
if a similar doctrine is not found in Christianism,*
§
* Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 637
t See Spencer, Principles of Biology, and Principles of Psychology
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 640.
§ Ibid. vol. iv. p. 641.
�Christ and Osiris.
one is tempted to say that the want of it is much to
be regretted. For there have been, and even still
are, few worse features in Christian Civilization
than its apathy to animal suffering. And it is very
*
noteworthy that it was the great Apostle of the
Utilitarian School of Moralists who, in that very
year from which dates a new period of the Modern
Revolution, 1789, introduced into European Ethics
the consideration of1 the interests of other animals.’!"
So. likewise, a new care for, and new appreciation of
animals is one of the characteristic features of
Comte s conception of the New Religion of Hu
manity.J And if, at length, men are beginning
again to become sympathetically aware that other
animals also besides themselves feel pain, and that it
is shameful and dastardly to inflict pain unnecessarily
upon them ; if there is now some hope that
Christian f sports ’ may, at length, be done away
with, and animal-barbarities generally ; and if,
in realising that fact of physical kinship with our
Elder Brethren, which Science affirms, and Chris
tianity scouts, there is being devoloped some nobler
sympathy also with them—this, at least, it must be
admitted, is certainly not owing to any doctrine in
Christianism that can be paralleled in Osirianism.
3. The considerations thus suggested on the c Idola
try and on the ‘ Animal-worship ’ of the Egyptians
may, I trust, prepare us candidly now to consider the
more essential doctrines of Osirianism—those doc
fnri^^E1\ristiU1.Crkelty ffenera!ly’we must not recall the gladia
torial comhats of the Roman amphitheatre, without recalling also the
heretic burnings of every chief town in Christendom. Noris Classic
ChrkH^o-1®^6 t]udg(?d
th,e days of lts decline: but rather, as also
aIps;1tYdlza!10n» by the days of its prime. And that the Middle
♦Ur ,!16
f-,lristian civilization is proved by the fact, that
” Ament Fhlch ha?l SCce then> modified Christianity has tended
more and more to sweep it, both as a doctrinal and as a social system,
I
Morals and Legislation, ch.
+ bee Mill, Comte and Positivism,
xvii.
�Christ and Osiris.
9
trines which are so remarkably similar to the great
dogmas of Christianism. And with respect to what
the great religious doctrines of the Egyptians really
were, we are not now in any doubt. Eor one of the
grandest achievements of Modern Science has been
*
the translation of their Funeral Ritual, the ‘ Todtenbuch,’ or ‘ Book of the Dead,’ as Lepsius called it, or
as it calls itself, the ‘ Departure into Light.’f It
belongs to Bunsen’s fourth class of those Sacred
Books which would form collectively the Bible of the
ancient Egyptians, and is scarcely posterior to 3,000
years before our era.J For, as Bunsen points out,
we have a very remarkable proof that the origin of
the prayers and hymns of this Ritual belongs pro
bably to the Pre-Menite Dynasty of Abydos, between
3100 and 4500 B.C., in the fact that we find one of
these hymns, § not in its original simplicity, but
already mixed up with glosses and commentaries,
inscribed on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept of the
eleventh dynasty. This monumental text agrees
with the printed text of the Turin papyrus. And
though the first year of the eleventh dynasty, which
lasted forty-three years, cannot be placed earlier
than 2782 B.c. yet, if we consider the many stages*
§
* ‘ The interpretation of the extinct languages of Egypt and Central
Asia will ever rank as one of the distinguishing features of the nine
teenth century.’—Birch, in Bunsen’s Egypt's Place, vol. v. p. ix.
t Or ‘ Manifestation to Light,’ according to Champollion and Dr.
Birch. The complete translation by the latter was only published with
the fifth volume of Bunsen's Egypt in 1867. But I had with me at
Thebes the previous volumes, besides Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians
and other works ; and I had the advantage of perusing and making
copious extracts from the translation of an American Egyptologer who
was residing at Luxor. Even Dr. Birch’s translation, however, must
be considered as representing the state of hieroglyphical knowledge
rather twenty years ago than now—so long was its publication, owing
to various causes, delayed. The translation of the ‘ Tod.tenbuch,’ to
which students must now refer, is that by Brugsch, now in course of
publication. My references, however, here, will be to Dr. Birch’s Trans
lation, as probably more accessible to the majority of readers.
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 646.
§ It forms chapter xvii. of the Ritual. See Birch’s translation in
Egypt's Place, vol. v. pp. 172-80.
IT Compare Egypt's Place, vol. V. pp. 29, 88, and 94.
�io
Christ and Osiris.
that must have been passed through, before the
original hymn, learned by heart, and recited from
memory, became mixed-up with scholia in an nndivided sacred text, we cannot but date its composi
tion and primitive use many centuries anterior to
that dynasty in which we find it thus embedded in
explanations. This hymn implies not only the wor
ship of Osiris, but the whole system of doctrines
connected with his redeeming life on Earth, and
judicial office in Heaven. Yet an antiquity, even
greater than is thus witnessed-to, we are obliged to
assign to Osirianism, by the fact that the Osirismyth itself mentions ‘ Byblus (Gebal in Phoenicia) as
the place where Isis brought up the young Osiris.’*
And this derivation from Asia is further confirmed
by the universally admitted identity of ‘ the funda
mental ideas of the worship, and sacred ceremonials
of Adonis and Osiris.’f To the very earliest period,
then, of the history of Humanity, as the history of
Thought, we must carry back the ideas of the Osirian
Faith. And yet, we may possibly find in the sequel,
that it is but a transformed Osirianism that, to this
day, dominates Christendom.
4. Considered as a whole, the 1 Departure into Light ’
is a revelation in something of an epic, and even
occasionally dramatic form of the departure of the
Soul into the Other-world, of its judgment, and of
what is required of it, in order to its final beatific
reception by its Father Osiris. Its formularies may,
perhaps, best be arranged under such heads as the
following:—I. General Address. II. Address to each
of the Forty-two Assessors. III. Announcement of
Justification. IV. Telling the names of different
parts of the Temple. V. Blessings, &c.J According
to Egyptian notions, it was ‘ essentially an inspired
* Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 347.
f Ibid.
J Compare Birch’s introduction to his translation, Egypt's Place,
vol. v.
�Christ and Osiris.
ii
work; and the term Hermetic, so often applied by
profane writers to these books, in reality means
inspired. It is Thoth himself who speaks, and
reveals the will of the Gods, and the mysterious
nature of divine things to man.’* Portions of them
are expressly stated to have been written by the very
finger of Thoth himself, and to have been the com
position of a great God.f And in this, it may be
noted by the way, that we see an illustration of what,
in the Introduction, was pointed out as one of the
general characteristics of the First Age of Humanity,
namely, the authorlessness, for the most part, of
its Literature, and its attribution, to supernatural
sources. But sacred this Ritual was also esteemed
as ‘ assuring to the soul a passage from the Earth; a
transit through the purgatory and other regions of
the Dead; the entrance into the Empyreal Gate, by
which the souls arrived at the presence of God,
typified by the Sun ; the admission into the Bark, or
Orb of the Sun, ever traversing in brilliant light the
' liquid ether; and protection from the various Liersin-wait, or Adversaries, who sought to accuse,
destroy, or detain it in its passage, or destiny.’J
In this most ancient book of the Osirian Scriptures
there is, no doubt, not only a vast mass of unin
telligible ritualistic allusions, but evidence of gross
superstition. Not, however, without evidence of
this, are also the Christian Scriptures. And it must
be borne in mind that the Osirian Bible had not the
good fortune to be, in the formation of its canon,
purged, as was the Christian, of impurer, apocryphal
elements. Yet, notwithstanding this misfortune, the
religious tone of the Osirian Ritual is such as the
following brief extracts may serve, though inade
quately, to illustrate.
* Ibid. p. 133.
+ See chapter lxiv., Rubric.
j Birch in Egypt's Place, vol. V. p. 134.
�12
Christ and Osiris.
5. Very touching are some of the expressions in
which the Departed calls on Osiris to save him from
his Accusers, from the Lake of Fire, and from the
Tormentors. Addressing these with the noble bold
ness of great faith, ‘ says Osiris Anfanch . . . while
you strive against me, your acts against me are
against Osiris............... To strive against me, is
as against Osiris.’ Again: 1 Let me come, having
seen and passed, having passed the Gate to see my
Father Osiris. I have made way through the dark
ness to my Father Osiris. I am his beloved. I stab
the heart of Sut. I do the things of my Father
Osiris. I have opened every door in heaven and
earth. I am his beloved son. I have come from the
mummy, an instructed spirit.’ And again : ‘ says
Osiris Anfanch, save me, as thou savest what
belongs to thy word ; catch me up ; the Lord is God,
there is but one God for me (or, before the Lord of
Mankind, there is but one Lord for me).’ A passage,
this, which is but one of many proving the mono
*
theism of the better instructed, or more deeply
thinking, of those whom the narrow ignorance
of that Creed propagated by the Galilean Fishermen
sets down as 1 idolatrous heathens.’ He who is thus
represented as speaking in a certain stage of his
progress to the region of ‘ Sacred Repose, ’ is more
particularly described in the beginning of some
papyri as ‘ Osiris Anfanch of the true faith, born of
the lady Souhenchem of fair fame.’ The prefix to
the man’s name of that of God himself is the ‘ new
name ’ which every true believer receives after death.
In other passages the good man is even spoken of as an
Osiris. ‘ The Osiris lives, after he dies, like the sun
daily; for as the sun dies, and is born in the
morning, so the Osiris dies.’ And finally, as to that
immortality which is so ignorantly imagined to have
* See chap. tv. sect. iii.
�Christ and Osiris.
13
been 1 brought to light by the Gospel, ’ the Osiris
exclaims in another passage : 1 I do not die again in
the Region of Sacred Repose.’ And again. ‘ Who
soever does what belongs to him, visibly (individu
ally ?) his soul participates in Life Eternal.’ And
again. ‘ Plait for thyself a garland . . . thy life is
everlasting.’
6. But it is the central doctrine of Osirianism that
more particularly claims our attention.
‘ The
peculiar character of Osiris,’ says Sir Gardner
Wilkinson, ‘ his coming upon Earth for the benefit of
mankind, with the title of “Manifester of Good”
and “ Revealer of Truth his being put to death by
the Malice of the Evil One; his burial and Resurrec
tion, and his becoming the Judge of the Dead, are
the most interesting features of the Egyptian Reli
gion. This was the great mystery; and this myth
and his worship were of the earliest times and
universal in Egypt.’* And, with this central doc
trine of Osirianism, so perfectly similar to that of
Christianism, doctrines are associated precisely analo
gous to those associated in Christianism with its
central doctrine. In ancient Osirianism, as in
modern Christianism, the Godhead is conceived as a
Trinity, yet are the three Gods declared to be only one
God. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Chris
tianism, we find the worship of a Divine Mother and
Child. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Chris
tianism, there is a doctrine of Atonement. In ancient
Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the
vision of a Last Judgment, and Resurrection of the
Body. And finally, in ancient Osirianism, as in
modern Christianism, the sanctions of morality are a
Lake of Eire and tormenting Demons, on the one
hand, and on the other, Eternal Life in the presence
* Ancient Egyptians (Popular Edition), vol. i. p. 331.
second Series of the larger work, vol. 1. p. 320.
Compare
�14
Christ and Osiris.
of God. Is it possible, then, that such similarities of
doctrines should not raise the most serious questions
as to the relation of the beliefs about Christ to those
about Osiris ; as to the cause of this wonderful simi
larity of the doctrines of Christianism to those of
Osirianism; nay, as to the possibility of the whole
doctrinal system of Modern Orthodoxy being but a
transformation of the Osiris-myth ? But if so—you
logically argue with amazed incredulity—all the most
sacred dogmas of the Christian faith would be
proved to have originated but in the influence of a
4 heathen ’ religion—a religion over the scenes of
which we Christians ordinarily pass with the most
complacent contempt ? Nay, if so ; if the doctrines
cf Christianism had but such an origin; must not.
the Christian ‘ Revelation ’ be acknowledged utterly
worthless to prove the reality of any one of the
supernatural facts which its doctrines affirm—even a
Personal Immortality, for instance, or a Personal
God ?
7. Well, be the consequences what they may, we
must find out what is the fact. And there is certainly
no escape in the desperate hypothesis to which the
manifestly Christian character of Osirianism has
driven some to have recourse—the hypothesis that
these doctrines of Osirianism were, somehow or
other, themselves a ‘ supernatural revelation.’ For
the discovery of Osirianism is the discovery of the
missing link between Christianism and Heathenism
generally, the religions of the First Age of Hu
manity, or what I have termed Naturianism. It has
hitherto appeared not only a crime but a blunder,
not merely a blasphemy but a frivolity, to compare
the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incar
nation, and of the Death and Resurrection of Christ
with the similar doctrines of Naturian Religions.
But the doctrines of a Trinity, of an Incarnation,
and of the Death and Resurrection of a God-man are
�Christ and Osiris.
15
developed in Osirianism with such gravity, such
moral purity, and such splendour, that we cannot
hesitate to honour them by a comparison with these
doctrines as developed in Christianism. Yet, from
Osirianism the gradation is so gentle through the
whole series of Nature-worships down to the lowest,
that, having compared the story and worship of
Christ with the worship and myth of Osiris, we find
ourselves necessarily comparing the Christian story
and worship with the worship and myth of Dionysus,
nay, of Adonis, and of Thammuz,—of Thammuz,
Whose annual wound in Lebanon allured
The Syrian damsels to lament his fate,
In amorous ditties all a summer’s day.
*
And hence if, to support the common belief in the
supernatural origin of Christianism, it is concluded
that the manifestly similar and unquestionably earlier
doctrines of Osiria'nism had a supernatural origin;
then, as we thus find it impossible to draw a line
separating the highest of the Heathen religions from
the lowest, a supernatural origin must also be
supposed for all those Heathen religions in
which we find—and where do we not find ?—the
story of a divine man dying, and—though but to rise
again—‘ in amorous ditties ’ annually lamented.t
But so great are the interests at stake, that even an
hypothesis so wild as this, it may be attempted to
defend. For, as has just been suggested, if these
Heathen beliefs in the incarnation of a God-man, and
in Heaven and Hell, have no sort of supernatural
authority; and if Osirianism is, indeed, the missing
link that connects Christianism with every one of
* Milton, Paradise Lost.
f Arjve 7oa>r, Krflepeia,
cfipepov ’tcrxeo nopp-Giv.
Aet ere 7raAi^ /cAavom, 7raAtr eh %ros &Wo Saxpvtrai.
Bion, Epitaph, Adon,
�i6
Christ and Osiris.
these religions ; what authority is there for the
objective reality of any one of those supernatural
existences, belief in which is thus found to be common
to Christianism, and Heathenism generally ? An
attempt, therefore, will doubtless be made to prove
the supernatural and divine origin of Heathenism.
And truly, when we recall Christian denunciations of,
and missions to the ‘ Heathenwhen we find that
the essential doctrines of ‘ Heathenism ’ are, just as
in Christianism, a Trinity, an Incarnation, and a
Future State of Reward and Punishment; hence
that—as such doctrines can have no guarantee of
objective reality, except they have had a super
natural origin—all must have had such an origin, or
none; and hence that, to guarantee the validity of
their own beliefs, Christians must maintain the
divine origin of those of Heathenism; there is seen
such a profound and tragic irony in the situation that
we become more than ever attached to the study of
that sublime drama—the history of Man.
8. Any hope, however, of establishing a theory of
the supernatural origin of the doctrines of Osirianism,
how ‘ Christian ’ soever they may be, has had, I trust
the ground cut from under it, by the facts, in the
foregoing chapter brought together, in explanation of
these doctrines as myths. For, before any theory of
the supernatural origin of these doctrines can be
maintained, the facts must be met which were in the
foregoing chapter summarised as explanatory of the
origin of the myths of Naturianism. These facts
were, as will be remembered, first, those which define
the character of the spontaneity of Mind; secondly,
the facts of the conditions under which that spon
taneity worked in primaeval societies; and thirdly,
those explanations of modern spiritist conceptions
which confirm the theory by which we explain the
origin of primitive spiritist conceptions. Before any
rational attempt, therefore, any attempt worthy of
�Christ and Osiris.
17
scientific notice, can be made to account for the
Christian character of the doctrines of Osirianism,
and of the other ‘ Heathen ’ religions, by attributing
to them some sort of supernatural origin in a ‘ primi
tive revelationthose three great classes of facts,
psychological, economical, and physio-psychological,
in the foregoing chapter summarised, must be shown
to be, not only severally, but jointly inadequate to
explain, as not only of a natural, but as of a very low
natural origin, the formation of such doctrines as
those which give to Osirianism its Christian cha
racter. Nor are these the only facts which must be
met before a scientific hearing even can be
gained for any hypothesis that would give to the
doctrines, whether Christian or Osirian, of a Trinity,
a life, death, and resurrection of a God-man, and an
Other-world of Reward and Punishment, any sort of
supernatural origin, and hence any degree of authori
tative sanction. For besides the great classes of
facts just specified, those also must be met which, in
proving the conception of Mutual Determination to
be the true and ultimate conception of Causation,
show such hypotheses, as this of a supernatural
origin of these doctrines, to belong properly only to,
or to be derived from, the earlier, and more ignorant
stages of men’s knowledge of the relations of things.
But these facts have not as yet been met by any of
the arguers for the supernatural origin, and there
fore authoritative truth of theological doctrines. We
must conclude, therefore, that if, similar though the
doctrines of Christianism are to the myths of Osi
rianism, and of Naturianism generally, a special and
independent origin cannot be proved for them; they
were but derived from, or but transformations of
these myths. And if so, then, belief in them has, at
bottom, no diviner sanction than the labour-driven
ignorance, and priest-ridden servility which—result
ing from the economical conditions under which
�18
Christ and Osiris.
mental spontaneities originally worked—led to what
were but the mere subjective fictions of the myth
creating imagination being taken for objective realities.
Our hypothesis, as it first presented itself, was simply,
that the similarity of the doctrines of Osirianism to
those of Christianism was such as to be naturally
explained only by showing that the earlier import
antly influenced the development of the later Creed.
We now, however, see that, if it is to such an origin
that the doctrines of Christianism are to be traced, we
cannot stop here. If the Christian doctrines of the
Trinity, Incarnation, and Other-world, are in any
way to be derived from the myths of Osirianism, or
generally, of Naturianism; they had in these myths
but their proximate origin. Their ultimate origin
must, therefore, have been identical with the origin
of these myths ; and, like that, to be found but in
those base conditions, in the foregoing chapter set
forth, of primitive spiritist conceptions.
9. Unquestionably, the verification of an hypo
thesis which, to such an origin as this, would trace the
myths of Christianity, is of the very gravest import.
For it is almost incredibly tragical, that the sorrow
of a Milton, for instance, in meditating on the death
of Christ, had—so far as that sorrow was occasioned
by the thought of a divine person, an incarnate Grod,
who had come voluntarily on earth for the good of
mankind—no more ground of actual objective fact
than had the lamentations of the Syrian damsels, whom
the great Christian poet, all unconscious of being
himself the victim of a similar bitter-sweet delusion,
scornfully represents as, ‘ in amorous ditties, ’ bewail
ing such a fiction of their own imaginations as a
Thammuz or Adonis. And yet, if we consider the
hypothesis here suggested, on the Temple-roof at
Karnak, in relation to our Ultimate Law of History,
we shall see that such an origin as we have here been
led to suppose for the doctrines of Christianism—we
�Christ and Osiris.
shall see that a transformation of the myths of Naturianism in such doctrines as those of Christianism—is
but a deduction from our Ultimate Law, and a deduc
tion, the verification of which will be one of the most
important verifications of that Law. For, of that
Law the great central affirmation is, that the passage
from the earlier to the later mode of conceiving
Causation is through a transitional age marked by
the differentiation of Subjective and Objective; a
differentiation implying a great development of in
dividuality, of subjectivity, of morality; but not a
differentiation implying anything more than greater
abstractness merely in the primitive spiritist concep
tion of Causation. But if so, then it will evidently
follow that the spiritist beliefs which have dominated
the First Age of Humanity, will not be destroyed, but
only undergo a moral transformation. And what is
it that we find in the doctrines of Christianism but
jiist this—all the old myths of Osirianism revived in
such an identical fashion intellectually, that,—put but
Christ for Osiris,—and the general description of the
one creed is an accurate description of the other ?
Only in the moral spirit of Christianism is there a
change. But this is just what, from our Ultimate Law
of History, we should expect to find ; and the fact,
therefore, which can be for it but a most important
verification. This changed moral spirit, however, in
no way affects the objective validity of the myths in
which it is expressed. These continue to be but a
language ; a language in which other sentiments were
expressed before Christianity ; and a language which,
after Christianity, will still survive for the ex
pression of ideal emotion. And shocking though to
some may be the thought of the utter unreality of the
supernatural beings affirmed by Christianism, as by
Osirianism; such is the spectacle here, at Karnak,
presented, of the sublime tragedy of Human Exist
ence; that, if it is in any degree duly felt, it will be
�20
Christ and Osiris.
impossible for one to shrink from clearly stating to
oneself the truth, however destructive it may be.
As other Ideals have perished, so,—it would be pre
sumptuous to deny,—may ours. Very far are we from
being the first who have experienced the agony of
discovered delusion.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
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
Christ and Osiris
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stuart-Glennie, John S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted by permission from "In the Morningland". Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Osiris is the ancient Egyptian god whose annual death and resurrection personified the self-renewing vitality and fertility of nature.
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
CT185
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 (Christ and Osiris), 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
Egypt
Jesus Christ
Conway Tracts
Egypt-Religion
Jesus Christ
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bde3004f4c8c58fe17e13272474df252.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=Lmu5bKNtiIAULC0az3qCQTdowHp57OGaeD7G5HUg0Da7BxIoQ69b4PPlo8ZYH%7EOJOwIWIXcJmDwxIa6g4wffK9YhXG6Om420DrcUe9bAqVbrcic15RrhhQaQcIK7lIpmQHZ-kAwA1epiyEAjQLfD0AHziMKs2kbAbYjxF09iqvAq9cE2p7hnEa3z15IE0Ubo3CEWjfCDOO6DjtpfczIm2pPY6a53Zjywkbzq%7EC7Skj3ZlMrVqxc9d%7E6-ceRiEZRicGfHC6SGcajTgE5SgOc58jTE0BOb9z6L42WPSMJFb9ZStA0mcJLR%7EXxHstB4omAsIXwiJkb3P6JhU-BQHl-DKA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fc8960e812414c43c21aa7a3b758865a
PDF Text
Text
PORTRAITURE AND MISSION
OF JESUS.
BY
THOMAS LUMISDEN STRANGE.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
1 8 7 6.
Price Sixpence.
��THE PORTRAITURE AND MISSION
OF JESUS.
IIAVE been, drawn to this subject by the work of
Prebendary Row, entitled “ The Supernatural in
the New Testament.” This defence of Christianity has
been undertaken by Mr Row at the desire of the Chris
tian Evidence Society, of which he is an active member,
as a reply to “ Supernatural Religion,” the extensive
currency of which able work has aroused action in
Christian circles.
Mr Row strengthens himself with his previous effort,
“ The Jesus of the Evangelists,” and in endeavouring
to meet him I must refer inquiring readers for a fuller
exhibition of the subjects I now handle to my volume,
“The Sources and Development of Christianity”
(Trubner & Co.).
Mr Row, in his earlier work, acknowledges the in
sufficiency of the endeavours hitherto made to clear
Christianity of the difficulties raised against the creed
by objectors of the present day, but, unfortunately, in
his attempt to supply a remedy, he shows himself un
acquainted with the sentiments of the more advanced
opponents of his cherished beliefs, who remain thus,
so far as he is concerned, still unanswered.
Mr Row considers the idea of the Christ, as embodied
in the Christian scriptures, to be a representation so
pure, so exalted, so consistent, so unprecedented, and
so realistic, that man was incapable of figuring such a
being out of his imagination, and that, consequently,
in this description, we have before us a true personage,
drawn from the life, and that life superhuman and
I
�6
The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
divine. But he sees the need at the same time to
point to the offered proofs of the alleged reality, and
his great source of testimony is that Jesus rose from
the dead. Here human supports are requisite, and
that upon which he substantially builds is the evidence
derived from the epistles attributed to Paul, who, it is
assumed, at a very early period, preached the resurrec
tion to audiences already cognizant of the’fact.
The conclusion I have come to is that there is not a
reliable trace of the existence of Christianity, from any
quarter, Jewish, Pagan, or Christian, for a hundred
and fifty years from the time alleged for the death of
the asserted founder. The sphere of Christianity I judge
must have been Alexandria, and not Jerusalem, which
had ceased to be, whence we have the Grecian, Egyp
tian, and Eastern elements, mingled with what was
derivable from Judaism, so characterizing Christianity,
and of which Alexandria was the focus. The tale of
Christianity thus with me is not dependent upon
enacted facts. I can allow that there was a person
such as the alleged founder of Christianity. His being
a carpenter, occupying the field of barbaric Galilee, and
suffering death as a culprit, are not features which the
constructor of an imaginary tale would go out of his way
to introduce wherewith to associate his hero, and there
fore, probably, we have here real facts presented to us;
but all beyond these circumstances, in illustration of the
being, preaching, and actions of the founder, I take to
be purely pictorial.
Mr Row, in dealing with the author of “ Supernatural
Religion,” insists on the possibility of what are termed
miracles. He assumes his adversary to be a Theist, one
who acknowledges the existence of a divine Creator,
handling created objects, and moulding them according
to his will. Introducing new force, such a Being may
convert water into wine without the intervention of the
grape; he may satisfy multitudes with supplies suffi
cient for but two or three persons, the debris of the
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
7
feasts amounting to more than the quantity of food
originally begun upon; he may enable a heavy body to
move upon water without sinking into and displacing
it; he may cure all diseases with a word, eject by a
command demons invading mankind, and raise the
dead. These are exercises of power liberally appealed
to by the heathen, in common with Jews and Chris
tians, from the remotest to the latest times. But it has
to be considered whether the Creator ever thus indulges
in exhibitions in reversal of his fixed rules of procedure;
and whether, when so many tales of the kind are sum
marily dismissed as unfounded, these particular instances
appearing in the Christian record may not be equally
untrue. What we should not credit now, whoever
asserted the facts, why should we receive because men
of old have made the assertion of the occurrences ? The
very essence of such testimony is the conviction arising
from ocular demonstration. Would the Creator need
to resort to such a source of evidence as this which can
only be passed on, in a diluted form, in the way of hear
say, and may be left to expire, as at this day, without
other support than unestablished tradition ? The ar
gument for the possibility of a miracle is of little account
when weighed against its improbability. Things of
divine origin stamp themselves as such by their inherent
properties. If the Creator has a testimony to offer of
his hand in the production of an object, it is never of a
dubious character. Between what he has done, and
what man may have done, there is no room to raise a
question. A blade of grass or a leaf reveals itself as
truly of his origination as the most stupendous orbs
circling in space. But when we come to miracles, there
is always the doubt to solve, were these manifestations
real ? Might they not have been due to trickery 1
Have they been rightly reported ? May not the whole
representations be figments, resorted to for an end 1
Mr Row does not, as far as I have observed, clear his
matter of these defects.
•
�8
The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
Mr Row apparently is not himself sure of the ground
on which he would have us place our feet as being per
fectly stable. Some of the representations he seeks to
reduce within limits that may be reasonably accepted.
The being of Satan, as currently apprehended, staggers
him. Wicked men are capable of exerting evil in
fluences, and Satan’s power is merely a higher sample
of such influence. If so, the agency of good may be
placed on the same sort of sliding scale, and the Deity
be figured as only a more exalted example of a benefi
cent man. The scripture distinctions are, however, as
absolute between Satanic and human capacity and
power, as between what is divine and what is human.
Again the temptation of Jesus is more than Mr Row
can receive in the naked form of the narrative. He
does not accept the idea of a personal Satan holding
intercourse with Jesus, transferring him bodily to a
pinnacle of the temple, or to the top of an exceedinghigh mountain, whence he was able to see “ all the
kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” Mr
Row is satisfied that there could be no such mountain,
or such exhibition, especially upon a spherical globe,
and would dispose of the whole representation as para
bolic. The sacred writer really did not mean what he
has apparently said. Drawing upon the infinite re
sources of the Creator, Mr Row observes of the multipli
cation of the few loaves and fishes upon which thous
ands were fed, that the materials were already existing
in the ground, the water, and the air, and had only to
be put together in the required forms by the additional
exercise of creative force he demands ; but he seems to
have overlooked that somehow, to produce bread, the
corn required to be ground and baked. The demons
transferred to the swine is an action he does not like to
contemplate as a reality. “The ‘going out from the
man ’ and 1 entering into the swine,’ may only denote the
cessation of the influence of the demons over the man,
and its exertion on the swine, without determining the
�The Portraiture and Mission of festis.
9
mode in which, that influence was exerted.” If we may
thus deal with the recounted miracles when they seem
to us too hard for belief pursuant to the terms in which
they have been narrated, these representations may one
and all be readily disposed of without offending reason
or warring against experience. The wine converted
water at the feast of Cana would be merely joy diffused
into the human heart; the diseases overcome would be
moral defects remedied; the restoring the blind, the
deaf, the dumb, and the lame, would be the imparting
moral and spiritual faculties where these were wanting
or dull and inactive; and the raising the dead would
be the introduction of spiritual life into a soul dead in
trespasses and sins. If the chosen advocate of a Society
constituted for the defence of Christianity may thus
lead the way in the path of rationalistic interpretation,
there will soon be nothing left of Christianity either to
object to or to defend.
Mr Row lowers the scripture representations in cer
tain other respects to have them reasonably received.
When Philip is said to have desired to see the Father,
and Jesus to have sought to satisfy him by pointing to
himself, this is held to imply no more than that in
Jesus was an exhibition of the Father’s character, his
person not being in question. Elsewhere we are told
that Jesus was “ the image of the invisible God,” “ the
express image of his person,” than which no stronger
phrases could be employed to denote a personal exhibi
tion. The choice being between rationalism and Chris
tianity, we cannot elect to have both.
Again, the allegation that miracles should be “signs”
which should “ follow them that believe,” affords a
test applicable to faith in miracles to the present day.
Mr Row, conscious that there is no such power among
believers, chooses to assert that it was a special tempo
rary endowment, “ designed for the building up of the
church into a distinct community, and when that
purpose was accomplished they (the miracles) were to
B
�io The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
cease.” The limitation in question is not in the text,
and is of Mr Row’s creation. And we may ask, when
has there ever been a “ distinct community” exhibiting
Christians in happy union in the faith ? The “ signs ”
effected nothing of the sort in the so-called apostolic
days, heresies and schisms having prevailed among the
body from the earliest age, and this condition has
accompanied Christianity through every period of its
existence to the present day. May we not then
reasonably doubt whether such “ signs ” were ever pro
vided for the effectuating that which never was accom
plished ?
Mr Row’s theory is, that miracles were provided in
order to vouch for a mission, and not for the purpose
of supporting lines of doctrine. “ Can miracles,” he
asks, “ prove moral truths 1 I answer emphatically in
the negative.” “ Moral truths cannot be proved by
the evidence of miracles, but must rest on their own
inherent evidence.” The existence of the Deity has,
he sees, been made known to man irrespective of any
written revelation. All the real elements of religion
are thus provided for the spiritual governance of the
human race without any appeal to miraculous agency,
which has been resorted to, it would seem, merely to
support certain wondrous tales. Judged of in this light,
of what value, it may be asked, is the scheme of Chris
tianity to the moral man, who stands so completely free
of and above its specialities ?
Restricted as is the use of miracles, as thus under
stood by Mr Row, we find them unessential even with
in this described, confined, sphere. Where was the
miraculous attestation to the mission of John the
Baptist ? He is described as the forerunner of the
Messiah, appointed to “ go before the face of the Lord
to prepare his ways,” “ to give light to them that sit in
darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide their
feet into the way of peace,” “ to make ready a people
prepared for the Lord.” So important were his func-
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
11
tions considered to be, that he stands proclaimed as a
prophet, “and more than a prophet,” “greater” in
effect than any who had yet been “ born of women,”
surpassing thus Elijah, Samuel, and even Moses him
self ; and yet his mission, so necessary to the introduc
tion of that of Jesus, is ushered in without a miracle.
On the other hand, the most stupendous miracle that
ever is alleged to have been exhibited, namely, the
resuscitation of a corpse by accidental contact with the
bones of Elisha, was a manifestation unassociated with
any mission. Thus we have the chiefest of all human
missions presented without the voucher of a miracle,
and the chiefest of all miracles enacted without alliance
to a mission, and Mr Row must find some other pur
pose for the miraculous than that assigned by him to
such action.
But supposing it the case that miracles were to attest
missions, does not the repetition of them involve the
weakness of the testimony they are to supply ? One
miracle apparently proves nothing unless followed up
by another, and another, and we have to ask whether
one or more insufficiencies will supply us with a suffi
ciency. And the whole collection of these wonders,
it would seem, required the corroboration of the
supreme miracle of the resurrection; and this again
required and received confirmation from the wonder
workings of the first Christians. Thus Mr Row weaves
his web to the entanglement of his own feet.
An essential to a miracle, according to Mr Row, is
that it should have been preannounced. Judged of by
this test, how will the miracle of the resurrection stand
its ground ? It is true there are passages attributing
to Jesus, when in life, that he said he was to rise again
on the third day from the dead; but there are circum
stances, taking them as stated, which completely defeat
the representation that he ever made such a declara
tion. The women who are said to have visited his
tomb on this third day, went there for the purpose of
�12 The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
embalming the body. They could not have expected
that the body was just then to pass into restored life.
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are declared to
have actually embalmed it. According to the fourth
Gospel, Mary Magdalene first visited the tomb, and
finding the body gone, went in bewilderment to Peter
and John saying, “ They have taken away the Lord out
of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have
laid him.” The apostles are said to have ran and
.satisfied themselves of the fact, but as yet, it is re
marked, “ they knew not the scripture, that he must
rise again from the dead.” Any announcement of the
coming resurrection by Jesus himself is not referred to,
and as to the scripture testimony, it must be observed,
it is nowhere fairly discoverable. According to the
third Gospel, the women were told distinctly by two
angels, who were standing at the tomb, that the resurrec
tion had been effected; and when they went and made
their report to the apostles, so little was the event
looked for, that their words were accounted as “idle tales,
and they believed them not.” The two disciples, said
to have been met with at Emmaus, showed that their hopes
in Jesus had been extinguished by his death. Thomas
is described as stoutly refusing to credit any evidence to
his re-appearance in life but that of his own senses. And,
according to Matthew, when the eleven had the risen
Jesus before them, some of them even then “ doubted.”
The announcement that he should rise from the dead,
had it been made by Jesus, was a circumstance of too
simple a sort to be misapprehended, especially from the
lips of one said to have repeatedly shown his power
over death by restoring others to life ; had he, conse
quently, made this announcement, the disciples, on
the day specified, would have been expecting his reap
pearance, and certainly would not have refused evi
dence to the event when it was certified to them that it
had occurred. Mr Row’s desideratum of preannounce
ment of the coming marvel, as necessary to the accept-
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
i3
ance of a miracle as such, is assuredly wanting in
respect of this chief instance on which he depends as a
fundamental testimony for Christianity.
Mr Row’s most important authority for the fact of
the resurrection is Paul, and of the occasions mentioned
by him when the risen Jesus manifested himself, he
selects, as entitled to most consideration, that when he
is said to have shown himself to “ above five hundred
brethren at once.” Mr Row supposes that this may
have happened when there was the apparition in
Galilee, recorded in Matthew, but here the text is
against his conclusion. It is said in Matthew, that
after his resurrection Jesus told the two Marys to
direct his “ brethren ” to “ go into Galilee,” where they
should see him. “ Then,” it is added, “ the eleven dis
ciples went into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus
had appointed them,” showing that the message was to
these only, and to them the exhibition. And this is
in accordance with the statement in the Acts, that he
manifested himself “ not to all the people, but unto
witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did
eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.”
This excludes the idea that Jesus ever appeared after
death to an indiscriminate multitude exceeding five
hundred in number; nor can we see that he had so
many followers at this time, as the believers were num
bered, it is said, after Pentecost, and then found to be
but “ about an hundred and twenty.”
The evidence thus attributed to Paul, which was at
best only hearsay, is found to be wanting in every
characteristic of true evidence, as judged of by other
associated scripture. Still Mr Row is entitled to say
that Paul asserted the fact of the resurrection, and he
makes much of this assertion as coming from him within
twenty or thirty years of the alleged occurrence.
Here Mr Row builds upon the circumstance that
four of the Pauline epistles—namely, that to the
Romans, the 1st and 2d to the Corinthians, and that
�14 The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
to the Galatians—are currently accepted by even ad
verse critics as genuine. I am aware that this is so,
but on the other hand know not on what grounds this
assurance is founded. Certainly there are no collateral
supports for Christianity, of a recognizable character,
from any quarter, during the so-called apostolic age, or,
it may be added, for a century later; and the mere
occurrence in these epistles of features to exhibit the
writer as a living personage, moving in the midst of
events and persons alluded to by him, may show him
to be a clever draftsman, but do not prove the realities
of any part of his descriptions, or that he was that Paul
of the apostolic period he professes to be. To me there
is abundant room for concluding that he was not that
Paul, and that these and the other epistles bearing the
name of Paul are from Gentile hands at indeterminate
periods.
It is apparent that the Paul of the Acts stood in a
very different position from the Paul of the epistles.
The Paul of the Acts is described as visiting Jerusalem
at an early stage in his Christian career, as associating
himself with the constituted apostles, as acting in
subordination to the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, and as in every respect of the type of the first
Christians, who were merely a Jewish sect. He pro
claimed himself, it is said, a Pharisee, and had never
diverged from the law of Moses or the temple ordi
nances. But the Paul of the Galatians, we are told,
kept himself aloof from Jerusalem and the apostles,
held a particular line of doctrine of his own which he
traced to a revelation made specially to himself, asserted
for himself independent authority coming to him, like
his doctrine, by commission from above, thought lightly
of the apostles, and swept away every reliance on
Judaism as being a system powerless for good, and
absolutely superseded by the new dispensation. The
other associated epistles inculcate the same view of
Judaism. Here we have, assuredly, between the Acts
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
15
and these epistles, two or more several Pauls; and the
scene being laid in the extinguished Jerusalem, it be
comes evident, as in the instance of the gospel descrip
tions of Christ personally, that we have in the Paul of
the alleged apostolical age merely pictorial representa
tions of such a preacher.
The epistle to the Romans presents special difficulties
to its acceptance as a genuine address to the Church of
Rome in the era ascribed to it. The faith of this
church, at this early period, is said to be “ spoken of
throughout the whole world,” and yet when Paul,
according to the Acts, at a later time visited Rome, so
little had this alleged church influenced the neighbour
hood, that the inquiring Jews of Rome are shown to
be totally ignorant of what constituted Christianity,
and to have looked to Paul to enlighten them; and as
Josephus made Rome his place of abode from the year 7 0
to the end of the century, there inditing his history of
all that concerned the Jews, it is apparent that, had
there been a sect flourishing in the city who were pro
claiming the risen Jesus as the Messiah in his time,
the circumstance was one this careful and discerning
writer could not have failed to notice and to comment
on. Furthermore, the last two chapters of this epistle
contain matters inconsistent with other portions of
Paul’s accepted history, and attribute to him an ac
quaintance with residents of Rome which he could not
have had before visiting the place ; to save the epistle
from which defects it is usual to sever these chapters
from it as spurious additions. When, however, the in
tegrity of the whole epistle may be called in question,
the occurrence of these particular chapters, we may
suppose, very possibly, to be indiscretions on the part
of the hand that fabricated the earlier portion.
The scripture shows that there was a time when the
disciples Considered themselves precluded from offering
the gospel to the Gentiles, and the restriction is ac
counted for by the founder when in life having enjoined
�16 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
it on them to confine their ministry to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel. The church was then in Jewisli
form, and accordingly in the Acts we find the first
teachers, and prominently the alleged Paul, described
as frequenting the temple and practising and upholding
Judaism. At some undiscernible period the door was
opened to the Gentiles, and the character of the dis
pensation became materially altered. Attempts are
made to place the change upon a warrantable footing,
but the statements here are so inconsistent, that all the
conclusion we can come to is that we have not true
history before us. The proclamation of the gospel to
the Gentiles could not have been owing, as alleged, to
a command issued by Jesus at his resurrection, else it
would not have been necessary to provide Peter with a
vision from heaven to encourage him to exercise this
liberty ; nor could there have been this vision to Peter,
or Paul and Barnabas would not have had to resort to
a questionable interpretation of the Jewish scripture to
justify their free ministry among the Gentiles ; and, it
may be added, were there this scriptural support, either
Jesus could not have been conscious of it, or he could
not have given the edict of exclusion against this scrip
ture. We arrive, therefore, at this result, that at some
unrevealed time, and under some circumstances not
properly disclosed, the Judaic form of Christianity
became altered and a dispensation for the Gentiles was
introduced, and in this unknown period, and certainly
not within twenty or thirty years of the alleged resur
rection, as assumed by Mr Row, the Pauline epistles
made their appearance, and probably from Gentile
hands.
Mr Row comforts himself with the idea that no one
looks upon the Christian narrative as a deliberate in
vention. It is time assuredly to remove from the
advocates of Christianity such a refuge. What is the
meaning of that host of criticism in which, in modern
times, Dr Strauss has led the way, founded upon the
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
17
conflict of statement in the gospel narratives, one repre
sentation destroying or excluding another, if it be not
that these critics disallow the historical value of the
narratives ? They may admit some sort of foundation
for the proferred history, but in its essential parts,
figuring the hero in a desired form, they see that reali
ties have not been followed. Marks, in fact, indicating
what must be looked upon as deliberate fabrication on
the part of the gospel writers are not wanting, and I
will point out a few.
It is transparent that these writers have had the
desire to exhibit Jesus as fulfilling ancient prophecies,
and there must always have been a tendency on their
parts to find events to correspond with the predictions.
Some of the circumstances so brought together are of a
character to give evidence of designed adaptations, as
that of Jesus being taken to and brought from Egypt
merely to carry out the saying, “ Out of Egypt have I
called my son;” the “voice of him that crieth in the
wilderness,” said to have been realized literally in the
instance of John the Baptist; the being borne up by
angels lest his foot should he dashed against a stone, as
being met by Jesus when Satan tempted him to throw
himself down from a pinnacle of the temple; the people
of Zabulon and Napthalim being visited by a great
light, provided by Jesus in his ministrations in those
among other localities; the attempt to prove John to
be the precursor before “ the great and dreadful day of
the Lord” spoken of by Malachi, of which no more
could be said than, “ If ye will receive it, this is Elias,
which was for to come;” the purging the temple be
cause Jeremiah had complained of God’s house being
converted into a den of thieves; the casting lots for
the garments of Jesus to accomplish a saying of the
Psalmist; and Jesus calling out in his last moments
“I thirst” in order to fulfil another passage in the
Psalms. A history composed with materials thus
selected carries with it on its face the appearance of
�18 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
having been so arranged for a purpose, and if there are
anywhere positive indications of statements introduced
of a nature warring with fact, the whole representation
becomes tainted as based upon fiction.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke contain genealogies
deriving Joseph in a direct line from David. Now, as
it is freely admitted in Jewish circles that the people
had no knowledge of their tribal distinctions from the
time of the Babylonish captivity, it is clear that the
family of Joseph, a carpenter of Galilee, could have
had no means of ascertaining their lineage as traceable
through David to the tribal patriarch Judah. It was
held desirable, to meet the requirements of assumed
prophecy, in presenting Jesus as the Messiah, to show
him lineally descended from David, and therefore it is
that we have these genealogies. They were framed by
the two writers independently of each other, and they
effectually disagree, as might be expected when put to
gether with imaginary data.
These same writers also give us a divine nativity for
Jesus, a circumstance to entirely defeat the aforesaid
genealogies; for if Jesus had no human father, he be
comes cleared of association with Joseph and David,
who had no part in his paternity. The event of this
divine procreation is never made use of again to the last
page of the sacred record, and the probability is that it
was a late introduction. The tale could not have been
current in the times depicted in the Acts, else it would
have been an offence charged against Paul, that he had
preached the new divinity, whereas he stood acquitted
of having transgressed in any way against accepted
Judaism as expressed by the law of Moses and em
bodied in the ordinances of the temple; nor would it
have been said at this time, as it has been said, that
Jesus obtained his divine sonship only at the day of
his resurrection, according to the saying applied to him
from the second Psalm.
With the account of the divine nativity in Matthew
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
19
is linked Herod’s slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem,
a matter the want of historical support for which has
been commonly noticed. The conspiracy of Pheroras,
as recounted by Josephus, would seem to have sug
gested this portion of the tale. Certain Pharisees,
supposed to be gifted with the power of seeing into the
future, predicted that Herod’s line should be over
thrown in favour of that of Pheroras. On this Herod
put these prophets, and all of his own family who
favoured the pretensions of Pheroras, to death.
Pheroras he drove away to his own tetrarchy, and
he went swearing with many oaths that he would
not return till Herod was dead. Thus we have the
prophecy of the subversion of the line of Herod, the
consequent slaughter, the withdrawal of the rival, and
his remaining in retreat till the death of Herod, all
which circumstances the gospel writer has apparently
made use of, and converted them in altered form to
embellish his history of Jesus. As Josephus’ history
was not indited till the year 93, it follows that this
portion of the narrative respecting Jesus was not even
imagined until a later time.
Jesus is described as having been of Nazareth, and
the distinction is kept up even by a voice from heaven
alleged to have addressed Paul in effecting his conver
sion. Josephus mentions no such place, and we first
hear of it, outside the pages of the scripture, from
Eusebius, in the fourth century, when it is called
Nazara, and said to be a village not of Galilee but of
Judea. Matthew, ever striving to adapt fact to pro
phecy, asserts that it had been predicted that Jesus
should be “called a Nazarene,” but by which of the
prophets he did not venture to point out. Possibly
he was thinking of the term Nazarite, and there is the
appearance that the name Nazareth has been coined
under a play upon the Hebrew word nazar, consecra
tion.
The second Psalm has a saying which has been
�20 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
frequently appealed to in the Christian scriptures as
applicable to Jesus. The phrase is, “ Thou art my son;
this day have I begotten thee.” The question is of
what day did the Psalmist speak ? He shows in the
verse next preceding that the time involved was when
it could also be said of the personage adverted to, “yet
have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion,” which
was to be effected when the confederacy of the kings and
rulers of the earth against him had been overthrown.
This is sufficiently definite, and shows the eventful
birth to be still in the womb of futurity. The Chris
tian writers, anxious for the support of so marked a
declaration, blind themselves to its surroundings, and
Say that it took effect in the instance of Jesus. The
earliest statement, namely, that in the Acts, was, that
it was by the means of his resurrection that this sonship was conferred upon him. The epistle to the
Romans supports this representation, and twice in the
epistle to the Hebrews the passage in question in its
integrity is made applicable to Jesus. At some later
time, seemingly, various other and conflicting allegations
were introduced to support the title of Jesus to this pro
phesied sonship. An angel informs Mary that he was
to acquire the divine sonship at his birth, his procreator
being the Holy Ghost; a voice from heaven proclaims
his sonship thirty years later at his baptism, as if then
conferred on him, using the words of the Psalm, but
(suspiciously) in a modified manner; and there is the
same declaration, with the same modified use of the
language of the Psalm, brought in at the transfigura
tion. On this one important point, therefore, how and
when Jesus was made to be the son of God, we have a
variety of conflicting statements, the leading statement,
namely, that of the Psalm, which is the foundation of
all the others, showing that it is an event that has yet
to be accomplished. It is a mockery of our senses if
the specific “ this day ” when the son in question was
to be “ begotten,” is applicable to five different occasions.
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
21
One would think also if God could introduce among
us an individual thus begotten by himself, his divinity
would have been recognizable without the need of the
offices of any herald.
There are some minor matters in which the hand of
the constructor is also shown. To meet a prophecy,
Jesus has to enter Jerusalem as its king upon an ass.
The writer of Matthew, misapprehending the Hebrew
phrase, brings upon the scene two animals, and curi
ously enough places Jesus upon them both. Mark and
Luke, reading the Hebrew aright, have but one
animal. Matthew and Luke state that Jesus predicted
that before the cock crowed Peter should deny him
thrice, and accordingly it is said, after his denial of any
knowledge of Jesus three several times, 11 immediately
the cock crew.” Mark has it that the saying of Jesus
to Peter was, “before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice and accordingly he makes it out that
there was a crowing of the cock after the first denial,
and again after the third, shaping his events to suit
his sense of the prophetic utterance. At the crucifixion
of Jesus the soldiers are said to have cast lots for his
garments in fulfilment of a saying in the twenty-second
Psalm. Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that the
whole of the garments were thus disposed of by lot.
John, misapprehending the force of the Hebrew, thinks
that it was meant that the “ vesture,” or upper “ coat,”
as he takes it to have been, had been referred to dis
tinctively, and was alone to be subjected to lot, and he
puts his facts accordingly, saying that the “ garments ”
were divided into four portions, for each soldier a por
tion, and that as the “ coat ” was without seam theycould not divide, it, but cast lots to decide which of
them should have it.
Mr Row furthermore supports himself with the
belief that the representation of Christ, as given in the
gospel accounts, is so drawn as to demonstrate that it
must have been taken from a real life, and that life of
�'ll Pbe Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
such a character as to have been of divine mould.
Assuredly the picture of a god-man was one difficult
to portray. We may say indeed that there is an im
possibility to conceive the incidents proper to prove the
being to be described as at once truly man and truly
God, the conditions of the two natures and spheres
being so diverse, and that of one of the two standing
essentially beyond our cognizance. That the gospel
writers in their portraiture have had nothing to draw
from but human models, and that they have failed to
present their subject with the attribute of perfection, or
to maintain the composition of the divine with the
human in consistency, was to have been expected; and
we may readily see, in the imperfections of their work,
that in a dark and ignorant age, building upon imagina,tion and not upon fact, they have ventured upon a task
which could not have been even attempted in an
enlightened one.
The object placed before us is a carpenter, the re
puted son of a carpenter, living in remote and barbaric
Galilee, suddenly presenting himself, at the mature age
of thirty, as in being an incarnate god, and in office the
long-expected Messiah of the Jews. His credentials
are his mighty works, or a system of thaumaturgical
displays, his own assertions, and the character of his
teaching, all to be judged of in an age incompetent to
discern or weigh the facts, and to be sustained through
all time by the hearsay reports of we know not who.
The humanity of the mother is certain, but we are
perplexed to decide whether on the father’s side he
sprang from a human or a divine parent. It is as when
the renowned conqueror Alexander was traceable either
to Philip or to Jupiter Amon; or as when Hercules
was derivable from the same supreme god or from
Amphitr.yo; or, nearer still in parallelism, as when
the imprisoned virgin Danae was visited and “ over
shadowed” by this divinity and brought forth the
heroic Perseus. Both parentages are asserted and sup-
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
23
ported, the divine by angelic messengers, visiting, how
ever, only the ostensible parents, the human by elabo
rate details of the father’s pedigree. What Jesus said
of himself is equally doubtful. His pleasure appears
to have been to style himself “ son of man; ” when
devils, cognizant of his divine constitution, were about
to disclose who he was, he authoritatively shut their
mouths; when at a late period in his ministry Peter
asserted his divine sonship and position as the Christ
or Messiah, he attributed his knowledge of him to a
direct revelation from heaven, showing that hitherto he
had never thus proclaimed himself; and at the same
time he interdicted his disciples from declaring him to
others. Currently he was considered to be a prophet,
and if, as held in the Acts and the Epistle to the
Romans, his condition as the son of God dated only
from his resurrection, his career in the flesh must have
been devoid of the divine ingredient. His place in the
godhead has therefore, it is apparent, been imagined for
him under the ordinary stimulus of the desire of his
followers to magnify their master, as in the instance of
the Hindu reformer Buddha, or of the Roman em
perors, or of any other example of apotheosis or
canonization.
The appeal to miracles is a very questionable resort.
Now as Jesus is repeatedly represented to have
exhorted those on whose behalf they were wrought to
keep the matter secret to themselves, and as when such
signs, upon being asked for, were refused to be accorded
by him, and the desire to have them was repressed as
sinful, it is to be gathered, in spite of the sayings to the
contrary, that the writers were aware that there was no
such public sense of the occurrence of these marvels as
must have attached to them had they really been
enacted, and we are left to the conclusion that there
were in fact no such demonstrations. Not only there
fore was the divine Messiahship, it may be seen, not
asserted in the lifetime of Jesus, the testimony of the
�24 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
miracles to fall back upon as evidences of his super
human being and mission, was also, it may be under
stood, equally wanting. Such displays of alleged power
are after all a very weak and hacknied device, common
among the Hebrew prophets, asserted as current among
the followers of Jesus, and traceable in every mythology
that has prevailed, Hindu, Chaldean, Egyptian, Grecian,
•and Roman, with which the Christian writers were
familiar when they drew up their narratives, and from
which sources, it may be judged, they derived their
models.
Nor were the acts ascribed to Jesus of a character
uniformly to sustain the pretensions asserted for him of
his divinity. It certainly was not ennobling that he
should by a miracle have supplied a vast quantity of
wine to promote the revelry of those who had already
“ well drunk; ” that he should make clay with his
spittle to anoint the eyes of a blind man and restore
him to sight; that he should drive swine to self-destruc
tion by infesting them with demons; that he should
look for his tribute money in a fish’s mouth ; that he
should curse and blight a senseless fig-tree for not pro
ducing fruit out of due season; that he should castigate
with a whip, made up by him of small cords, merchants
and money changers assembled in the temple courts, in
promotion of the ordinary temple services. These are
defective pictures betraying the pencils of inferior
artists.
We have Jesus represented as stretching out his arms
longingly to Jerusalem, exclaiming, “How often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not;” but as his divine sonship and Messiahship were
both profound secrets, in what capacity, it must be
asked, could he have offered himself to Jerusalem and
been refused 1 In fact there is no such action towards
the city on his part described, and the attitude in ques
tion is a mere sensational protraiture.
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
25
We have him described as speaking as never man
spake before, but such a thing as a novel elevated senti
ment is not recorded as falling from his lips. He retails
what was current among Essenes and devout Jews of
his day, and preaches natural religion as prevailing
among the godly in all times. His famous sermon on
the mount, for example, contains nothing but what is
fairly traceable to the teachers of his people who had
preceded him, as transmitted to us in the Talmudic
traditions. But in these unequal delineations he is
also represented to us as designedly withholding from
the people instruction in godliness. He veils his dis
courses in parables with the professed intention that
they should not be intelligible to his hearers, to their
benefit, “lest at any time they should see with their
eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand
with their heart, and should be converted, and he should
heal them,” (the parables, however, nevertheless, being
simple in structure, and transparent as to their import) ;
and he solemnly thanks God that “these things,”
necessary for their salvation, are “ hid ” from the wise
and prudent, and revealed only to those who are without
discernment as “ babes.”
He is made, contrary to all sense of modesty, to an
nounce himself as “ meek and lowly,” ever ready “ to
seek and to save the lost ones.” We find him far from
accessible to those who looked to him for instruction,
rebuffing them with short and enigmatical answers; he
reviles Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites, whitened
sepulchres, liars, and children of the devil; he is rude
to his own mother ; he holds earthly ties of relationship
in small account when measured by his personal mission,
and represents that he has “ come to set a man at vari
ance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw,” adding that under his dispensation “ a man’s foes
shall be they of his own household.” “ There is nothing
more remarkable,” acknowledges Mr Bow himself, in
�26 The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
his earlier work, “ The Jesus of the Evangelists,”—“in
the Evangelical portraiture of the Christ than the
manner in which the humblest of men is depicted as
habitually preaching himself.’’ “In no other man
would such an assumption wear anything but the
appearance of arrogance.” And yet we are to accept
the feature as consistent with a perfect specimen of
humanity fortified and exalted with a divine essence
ever permeating through it.
The being so composed is in truth a mass of bewilder
ing inconsistencies. God is said to have “ so loved the
world ” that he gave up his son “ that the world through
him might be saved,” and yet the son solemnly inti
mates to the Father, “ I pray not for the world ; ” he
is “ the light of the world,” “ the true light which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and
nevertheless consigns multitudes to perdition, of whom
he will say, “ I never knew you; ” he expresses in him
self the type of poverty, as one who had not a hole
wherein to lay his head, but can pass forty days and
forty nights without food, create sustenance for thou
sands out of nothing, fabricate wine out of water, and
supply himself with cash from a fish’s mouth; he is
at once the bridegroom, the centre of joy, and spreading
joy around him, and the man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief; he is the source of life, and yet cannot pro
tect his own life from his enemies ; he is God, “ equal
with God,” and nevertheless, in an agony of distress,
“ with strong crying and tears,’’ entreats God for
deliverance, and his prayer is unheeded ; again he is
God, and yet feels himself abandoned by God ; he came
to lay down his life as a sacrifice for others, and when
he undergoes his destined fate, not recognizing his own
work, he upbraids God with forsaking him, and wonders
“ why” he has done so.
It is a relief to know that this is no true life, but a
mere portraiture of an ideal personage drawn by ignorant
men, for ignorant classes, in days of darkness. Josephus
�The Portraiture and Mission of°Jesus.
27
knew nothing of these wonderments, and he wrote up to
the year 93, being familiar with all the chief scenes of
the alleged Christianity. Nicolaus of Damascus, who
preceded him and lived to the time of Herod’s successor
Archelaus, and Justus of Tiberias, who was the con
temporary and rival of Josephus in Galilee, both Jewish
historians, equally knew nothing of the movement.
Philo-Judseus, who occupied the whole period ascribed
to Jesus, and engaged himself deeply in figuring out the
Logos, had heard nothing of the being who was realizing
at Jerusalem the image his fancy was creating ; and for
about a hundred and fifty years from the time given as
that of the death of Jesus, there is not a single reliable
name or record connected with Christianity which can
be safely associated with the period. After this lapse
of time, when Jerusalem had been destroyed and the
Jews exiled by Hadrian, the Christian representations
were conceived and gradually put together. The Jewish
scriptures and the traditionary teaching of their doctors,
the Essenes and Therapeuts, the Greek philosophies, the
neo-platonism of Alexandria, and the Buddhism of the
East, gave ample supplies for the composition of the
doctrinal portion of the new faith; the divinely pro
created personages of the Grecian and Roman pantheons,
the tales of the Egyptian Osiris, and of the Indian
Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, furnished the materials
for the image of the new saviour of mankind; and
every surrounding mythology poured forth samples of
the “ mighty works ” that were to be attributed to him
to attract and enslave his followers ; and thus, first
from Judaism, and finally from the bosom of heathen
dom, we have our matured expression of Christianity.
�
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 portraiture and mission of Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Strange, Thomas Lumisden
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 27 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The pamphlet, in part, challenges the work of Prebendary Row entitled 'The Supernatural in the New Testament'.
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
CT179
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The portraiture and mission of Jesus), 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
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
Superstition
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b51ed27a556e8f51386ba731f205773c.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=drsi9c7hucPWdAXkF4tcIlBE0vkFq5OCi0N4hcW3k-JcgYf-%7Em7y8rLdbkkzTcU2F8h%7EVkIwHdRH7c6TcFIDuIODjxZDmr-6mw8tquOc-z65lMsWzm1X55ioGm0mHpgo0HMPXrwGFBC5kMICIYMtjTQI3-ix0jK512UxfiC%7EMh%7EA5u-4KEoGm%7E-zVYjIx0-9ccZuocC%7EtywxwrtIhpZKTUiEWJpWIN4K8a1AziscMkCNQVkL30qS-AA4eKppNqUkC4oZ1VtsN9yVuNxPFLZwk3r%7ELPAmeKjFVjUiOG4vxPu0mFW%7EQnoHscUsCRujEkuOEQY5eF8UbbYG5z2EHWaqFw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
775f2da9c4f004455b0d8930567c8cc3
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
“ TRUTH SEEKER ” PAMPHLETS, No. 2.]
2nd EDITION.
CHRIST AND ALLY SLOPER
BY THE LATE SAM STANDRING.
WITH PREFATORYj NOTE BY GEORGE STANDRING.
IPRICE ONE PENNY.
�PREFATORY NOTE.
The publishers have asked me to contribute a note to this,
the second, edition of my late brother’s little pamphlet.
In “ Christ and Ally Sloper,” Sam added a very suggestive and
interesting “line” to Freethought propaganda. The pamphlet—
obviously summarized from the materials of a lecture—was in its
first edition hastily put together, and I have in this reprint
corrected some blemishes in style that he had allowed to pass.
But I have not in any way interfered with his treatment of the
subject; the alterations made are simply verbal.
In dealing with Ally Sloper in this way, Sam paid a probable
unconscious tribute to the profound influence of early mental im
pressions. When the first volume of Sloper sketches appeared—
about thirty years ago—Sam, my sister Kate, and I were about the
age when the consumption of sweet-stuff and the daily routine of
home-life become merged in the wider interests of the outside world.
The Sloper “literature”—his “Book of Beauty,”-“Sloper at the
Paris Exhibition,” etc.—were marked, learned, and inwardly digested
by us with that absorbing delight which we lose in riper years. I
have now upon my shelf Sloper’s “ Book of Beauty,”—a relic of
that far-off time; well-thumbed, toffee-marked, loose and partly in
tatters; but it is to me full of tenderest memories of bygone
days. Why did Sam, for so many years, bear in mind with an
affectionate interest the old rascal Sloper and his associates 1 Why
do I now on occasion turn over the tattered pages of the book, and
find each well-remembered stupid picture encircled in a positive
halo of sweet memories 1 To us both, Sloper recalled the days of
our childhood, the love and presence of our long-lost mother, the
simple joys of our early home-life, gone beyond recall. In this
respect, Jesus Christ and Ally Sloper stand to me in much the
same relation. I can well remember as a child reading the story
of Christ in the gospels ; and well also can I remember the feeling
of utter desolation that came over me as I read of his death upon
the cross. The resurrection I never believed in; Jesus, alive, I
loved with a childish love; but when he was crucified I felt that
he was dead once and for all, and the story of his resurrection
failed to comfort or convince me.
While priests are permitted to imbue the minds of children with
superstition the work of emancipation must ever continue to be
necessary. Let us strive to stop the evil at its source by protecting
the young from its contaminating influence !
George Standring.
�3^14-4*J6^3
CHRIST AND ALLY SLOPER.
By SAM
STANDRING.
Every Freethought lecturer finds it necessary now and again to
answer the crucial question, Did Jesus Christ ever live 1 Of course
his Christian hearers will invariably object that the question is the
merest twaddle; that there is no more doubt about Christ having
lived than there is about the lecturer’s existence; that all history
proves that Jesus of Nazareth was a very real person indeed.
What I want to do in this pamphlet is to show that a purely
fictitious character may easily become one in whom the many
believe. I have no wish whatever to draw any analogy between
Jesus and Ally Sloper beyond that of the origin and development
of the respective myths. Granted that the characters are fictitious,
their characteristics are mere details of no present concern ; but in
this case the parallel is so clear that one is tempted to run the risk
of being called “ blasphemous ” in order to prove so desirable a
point.
.
Ally Sloper has originated within the memory of all middle-aged
readers. It is but some thirty years since he first saw the light of
day. Judy was his literary mother. One fine morning a page of
that comic journal was devoted to some of the eccentric doings of
the tall thin man whose crumpled white hat with its conspicuous
broad black band, swallow-tailed coat, and the protruding gin
bottle were to mark him as a pet of Society. No one called round
�4
on the editor with a pickaxe or pistol, and so it was deemed
possible to publish another sketch in safety. This proved no more
dangerous than the other. Frequent insertions of the quaint old
man’s preposterous doings caused him to become familiar to the
readers. They not only liked him, they began to look with
eagerness for the story of his adventures. Ally was ever welcome,
and he grew in favour week by week. As time wore on, it became
desirable to add to the original stock. Sloper had a companion,
by name Iky Mo, who mainly instigated the major part of our
hero’s peccadilloes, and reaped the lion’s share of the harvest.
Ally did the wickedness and got the kicks; when ha’pence came
in, Iky Mo held the bag for them. By this means Ally Sloper
soon found himself honoured as the best-kicked man in Europe.
After some seventeen years of prosperity in Judy, Ally Sloper
began to launch out on his own account. Marie Duval’s excellent
sketches settled his physiognomy; and he who once had been but
the actor of cruel jokes had now become the centre, the hero of
of every adventure. His Summer Number detached him from his
mother; and a Calendar, if I remember rightly, still further
weaned him from the Old Lady of Fleet Street. More than aught
else, the collections of his sayings and doings in the wonderfully
racy “Book of Beauty” gave Sloper an independence he had long
deserved.
Now commences the second portion of “The Eminent’s” work
and fame. Hitherto there had been no material change in him.
As Ross and Marie Duval had initiated him so he remained.
A
few apocryphal data of his boyhood’s days had been made mani
fest to the public; but we knew little of him as a family man.
Beyond a glimpse or two in his “ Guide to the Paris Exhibition,”
the public scarcely knew, even, that he had a better half. With
the advent of “ Ally Sloper’s Half Holiday ” all this was changed.
Sloper assumed a variety of different characters. At the Derby
Day or University Boat Race he was indispensable. At dinner
with the Queen, or inspecting a review of troops, or playing tricks
upon the crowds who sought refreshment at the sea-side, Ally
Sloper was equally at home. His gin-blossom nose was there,
though the hat, coat, and boots gave way to clothing in keeping
with the scene. His wife now became more and more apparent.
The sons of his bosom, and Tootsie, the sweet daughter of his
heart, grew up round him like the olive branches of Holy Scripture.
�Besides these, the Hon. Billy, the Dook Snook, Tottie Goodenough,
and the other ladies of the “Friv.,” Bill Higgins, and some others,
about twenty in all, formed the group of which Ally was necessarily
the centre. Week by week their doings are all faithfully recorded.
To thousands of persons they are undoubtedly real characters,
whose images are to be seen in toy-shop windows; who appear
from time to time on the public stage, and ride about at country
fairs. What fancy dress ball or ventriloquial exhibition would
be complete without the presence of “ The Friend of Man ” ? Nay,
the thing has gone even farther than that. In Shoe Lane, London,
one sees the large front window of the “Ally Sloper’s Half Holiday”
offices filled as a museum with old hats, combs, brushes, shoes, and
hundreds of other relics alleged to have belonged to Sloper and his
family and friends ; whilst in certain shops you see framed and
glazed diplomas granted by “ The Eminent ” to particular trades
men, and in the stage papers a portion of the actors and actresses
rejoice in the use of certain initials, F.O.S. to wit, which signify
that they are friends of Sloper’s.
Now when we remember that a period of less than thirty years
has sufficed to bring this character into notoriety such as we have
witnessed, and to give it a popularity which does not appear to be
decaying, it is not difficult to conceive how many of the myths of
history have thus arisen and developed. The only thing is that in
this case we are all able to pull the curtain aside and see the origin
for ourselves; whereas in others, their origin is lost in the mists
of antiquity, and we are compelled to accept, with or without a
grain of salt, what ancient men have said about them.
As I have selected Christ for my parallel case, let us now
examine the points of likeness in the two histories. The earliest
records of Jesus are no wilder in their improbability than the
story of Ally Sloper. Run through the apocryphal gospels, those
earliest narratives of Christ’s boyhood days, and you find him
turning children into kids because they hide themselves and refuse
to play with him; or, being run against by another lad and
knocked over, exclaiming, “As thou hast made me to fall, so shalt
thou fall and not rise,” immediately causing him to fall down and
die. Or, again, when he would show himself superior to the other
children, he would make sparrows of the mud in which they were
all playing and then cause his own to fly away, leaving theirs in
their primitive condition. Innumerable stories of this sort cluster
J
�6
around the early days of Jesus. We don’t believe them now, but
they were piously believed in by the Christians of the earliest
centuries of our era. Some day, when Ally Sloper shall be
numbered amongst the gods of the heathen, a pious writer may
select from his various records the less self-evident untruths, get
them canonized by the Church of his day, and set down the other
absurdities as “apocryphal.”
Men ask, “How is it Christ is accepted if he never lived ? Have
we not the gospels which proclaim his works ? Have not contemp
oraries added their words to those of the sacred writers 1 ” All
this may be admitted, if we are to accept as true all that has ever
been written; but in the case of Christ we must remember that
there is no more contemporary evidence of the reality of Christ's
person than there is of the reality of Ally Sloper’s. The one is
certainly fictitious, and there is every reason for believing that the
other is fictitious also. When men like Archdeacon Farrar give
away the only possible confirmation, that of Josephus, as an
interpolation and forgery, smaller Church-folk need not be over
nice in rejecting it as well.
The Ally Sloper myth has lived and grown because the humor
of his imaginary doings tickled the people of his day. The ignorant,
who are always amongst the religious enthusiasts, seem already to
accept him as a human being. Some will gravely tell you that at
Fair time they have seen him drive through the town with his lass
Tootsie. His character is so little overdrawn that those who
delight in tales of booze and feats of drunkenness regard him as a
“jolly good fellow.”
Christ came into popularity in another
fashion, but on similar lines. He was made the vehicle for
preaching submission to an overweighted and oppressed people.
All that was feminine and passive in human nature he was made
to glorify, and the sentimental followed his doctrines, whilst their
rulers saw how great a help such a religion would be to them in
diverting the minds of their conquered people from their sufferings,
—so great, indeed, that they eventually professed to embrace
the new religion, changing the direction of the worship to suit the
ends they had in view.
The sword and stake assisted to remove
any opposition to the new “faith.” To make Jesus the more
acceptable he was given a title which men could make into a pun,
for “ Christus,” anointed, was often written by the ancients as
“ Chrestos,” the Greek for a good fellow. To some, then, he
�7
became the Messiah of the Scriptures, whilst to others he was the
embodiment of a good sort of man; and all were equally well
pleased.
The more men examine into the early history of Christ, the less
they seem willing to believe it. It is the unenquiring who adhere
to it so tenaciously. Even many who now believe, laugh at the
“ true relics ” of the cross, the crown of thorns, the Virgin Mary’s
dress, and so on, of which the Christian Cathedrals have so many.
Protestants, like Sloperians, have wearied of the original Christ.
Sloper left his tricks and entered the arena of modern life; Christ
is no longer the Saviour of the World, the hero of the Atonement,
or an emptied God; he is now the King of Labor, the Socialist, the
Anarchist, the Leader of Armies, or anything else that suits the
palate of the hour. The Christ of our boyhood’s theology can be
but ill-recognised in the Jesus of the modern up-to-date preacher.
It only remains for the Editor of Ally Sloper to found a school,
public hall, or other useful institution, and to start a counterpart
movement to that set on foot by the earlier Christians to popularise
their new deity. Those who appeal so much and so often to the
name of Christ in connection with benevolent institutions may
yet live to see the name of Sloper over the portals of their like.
Be that as it may, it is difficult to see much essential difference
between the origin and development of the so-called “ histories ” of
those celebrated figure-heads, Christ and Sloper.
The Truth Seeker Pamphlets may be
had from
R. Forder, 28, Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
A. & H. Bbadlaugh Bonner, 1 & 2, Tooks Court, Cursitor Street,
London, E.C.
“ Truth Seeker ” Company, 36, Villiers Street, Bradford.
Or all Newsagents to
order.
Printed and published by the “ Truth Seeker” Company, Bradford.
�THE
Truth Seeker.
Edited by JOHN GRANGE.
A Monthly Journal devoted to-Mental Freedom and Progress
SHOULD BE READ BY ALL FREETHINKERS.
PUBLISHED ON THE FIRST OF EACH MONTH.
LONDON:—R. FORDER, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
BRADFORD:—J. W. GOTT, 36, Villiers Street.
“TRUTH SEEKER” PAMPHLETS.
Be
de
No. 1—Genesis and Science, by Stanley Jones
..
..
..
..01
No. 2—Christ and Ally Sloper, by Sam Standring
..
..
..
..01
No. 3—Secularism, by John Grange.......................................................... 0 1
No. i—The Decay of Belief, by C. Cohen
..
..
..
..01
No. 5—His Satanic Majesty, by S. H. Alison ..
..
..
..01
No. 6—Biography of A. B. Moss, by Wm. Heaford................................... 0 1
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christ and Ally Sloper
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: [Bradford]
Collation: 7 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 21 cm.
Series title: Truth Seeker Pamphlets
Series number: No. 2
Notes: Full-length portrait [of the author?] on front cover. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Alexander "Ally" Sloper is the eponymous fictional character of the comic strip Ally Sloper. He is one of the earliest comic strip characters and he is regarded as the first recurring character in comics. List of Truth Seeker pamphlets on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Standring, Sam
Standring, George
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[The "Truth Seeker" Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N623
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christ and Ally Sloper), 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
Ally Sloper (Fictional Character)
Freethought
Jesus Christ
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3dcb87723bdaa726998283b78bf385a2.pdf?Expires=1779321600&Signature=qwE94ytqCQJ98x1m3wPDwKGhiLBqh97vkSbJRrPDNHmhHtTMO-Lv2mo0Ic1xGmD5aC%7Ekn5Sss4HpMY2RsqA%7EYYZGnzyJWNOp1kf7%7Extllj6qaxXi2ew48nTMKPeiwhYhAk%7EdmpbrTyxa%7E%7EagrDU3vg3aW%7E238AfF08cGbGjznu6M6BncPUKb6vMU-tbsOLEpTF5Ojod2sruEmkj1d62ByDqCDRPvCho02AV7MIsohPxxQ2CysO3a6mdAiYKlc8rSXEreSWIiHgTcltARKEmTq6Kq1RE1a2F8OkUrBOM5RvyB3V7BAqVa-OeCZaSzVlH4B7AdlqJXt0iP7fxNhLPBsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
9684bb77406655d5b32ac646d269b18a
PDF Text
Text
DEAN OF RIPON
ON THE
PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF JESUS,
IN ITS BEARING ON THE.
TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY
THOMAS SCOTT.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
No. 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET
HAYMARKET, W.
�THE REV. DR HUGH M’NEILE
ON THE
RESURRECTION.
To the Editor of the “Times.”
Sir,—There is one passage in the “ Bennett Judg
ment ” on which I desire, with your permission, to
publish a few observations. It is this—After dis
cussing the terms “ corporal,” “ natural,” “ true,” as
applied to the body of Christ, their Lordships say :
“The matters to which they relate are confessedly not
comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible by the
human understanding; the province of reason as applied to
them is, therefore, very limited, and the terms employed
have not, and cannot have, that precision of meaning which
the character of the argument demands.”
The subject-matter referred to is the risen body
of Christ, and I wish to call attention to the nature
of the proof we have of the resurrection of His
body. It is needless to comment on its importance.
Without the historical fact of the resurrection of
Christ’s body, Christianity crumbles into a myth.
We learn from St Luke that Christ showed him
self alive after his Passion by many infallible proofs
(rrA.-p^/nts). These are recorded by the Evangelists.
�6
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Helle
He said, “Behold my hands and my feet that it is I
myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not
flesh and bones as ye see me have.” “Sic hse
actiones, loqui, ambulare, edere, bibere rex^pia
sunt.”—Beza. All such proofs were addressed to
the senses of the Apostles, and the result was a
process of clear and conclusive reasoning. The
human mind is not capable of clearer proof on
any practical subject than that which is derived
from the testimony of the senses, and the conse
quent deductions of the reason. Such was the proof,
satisfactory, and, as far as human consciousness is
concerned, infallible, which was given of the Resur
rection of Christ. Before his death, his flesh was
similar to ours. “Forasmuch as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself
likewise took part of the same ” (atros irapait\ri<jl<Ds
perea^e twp avrwv'). His flesh, then, was an object of
sense, concerning which men might fairly reason—
concerning which reasonable men could not but
reason.
If, after his resurrection, his flesh had been some
thing altogether different—if it had been something
not comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehen
sible by the human understanding—if the province
of reasoning as applied to it had been, therefore,
very limited—if the terms employed to describe it
had not, and could not have, that precision of
meaning which a proof of his resurrection demanded
—had this been so, how could his resurrection have
been proved, and if his resurrection be not proved,
reasonably and conclusively proved, where is Chris
tianity itself ?
But his flesh after his resurrection was appealed
to as matter of sense and argument and proof, and,
�on the Resurrection.
7
therefore, it was quite comprehensible by the human
understanding, and, therefore, the province of
reason as applied to it was perfect, and therefore
the terms employed to describe it had, and could
not but have, the precision of meaning indispensable
for establishing the fact that he was indeed risen
from the dead.
Deny the clear and conclusive province of reason
as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and you
cannot prove the resurrection of his body.
Admit the clear and conclusive province of reason
as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and you cannot
prove any presence whatever of his flesh in the Lord’s
Supper.. Nay, you can prove its absence, for human
reason is altogether competent to the conclusion
that what cannot be seen, or felt, or tasted cannot
be flesh, whatever else it may be, and the question
here is not about something else but about flesh.
All this is made clearer still by contrast. Let the
subject under consideration be “ The Trinity.” Here
we can have no infallible proofs. We may have,
indeed, and we have, clear revelation, reasonably
attested to be revelation, and therefore entitled to
acceptance on authority, as little children accept on
authority ; but the subject-matter is confessedly not
comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible,
by the human understanding. The province of
reasoning as applied to it is, therefore, very limited,
and the terms employed in revealing it have not
and cannot have that precision of meaning which
an argument between man and man demands.
Acute controversialists of the Church of Rome
have propagated much deception by treating as
analogous the mystery of the Trinity, and what
they call the mystery of the Sacrament. Under
�8
‘The Rev. Dr M’Neile on the Resurrection.
cover of this assumed analogy, strange bewildering
phrases have been introduced and applied to flesh
and blood — “ spiritual,” “ supernatural,” “ sacra
mental,” “ mystical,” “ ineffable,” “ supralocal.”
But there is no ground for this. The mode of
the Divine existence is, indeed, a mystery, far
beyond the province of human reason; but flesh
and blood are not so, and bread and wine are not
so; and there is not the slightest intimation in
Holy Scripture of any mystery connected with the
Lord’s Supper. But ecclesiastical tradition? I
willingly leave to others the task of exploring that
troubled sea, which does indeed “ cast up mire and
dirt,” but I may cordially and devoutly embrace
the definition of mysteries as applied to the Lord’s
Supper in our Book of Common Prayer—“ pledges
of His love and for a continual remembrance of His
death, to our great and endless comfort.”
I am, Sir,
x
Your obliged and obedient servant,
HUGH M’NEILE.
The Deanery, Ripon, June 25.
�DR M’NEILE ON THE RESURRECTION.
N the number of the Times for Thursday, June
27, of the present year (1872), there appeared
the preceding letter on the Bennett Judgment,
addressed to the Editor by Dr Hugh M’Neile, Dean
of Ripon. To this letter I desire to call the special
attention of those who may wish that our religion,
whatever it may be, shall rest on the basis of solid
fact or ascertained truth. It would be scarcely pos
sible to exaggerate the importance of the issue which
the Dean of Ripon has most pertinently raised, or to
lay too much stress on the propositions by which he
believes, or appears to believe, that he has solved the
problem satisfactorily. Like many other clergymen
of the Church of England, and more especially
like many others of the party to which Dr M’Neile
is supposed to belong, he has been disturbed by
that Judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council which, acquitting Mr Bennett of formal
heresy, seems in his opinion to undermine the
very foundations of the faith of a large majority of
English churchmen. It is well to know what these
foundations are, and Dr M’Neile has exhibited them
in the clearest possible light. For the Judgment
itself, it is enough to say that it regards the whole
subject which furnished the ground of prose
cution for Mr Bennett’s assailants, as wrapped in
dense, if not in impenetrable, mists. Mr Bennett,
I
�io
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Nelle
believing with them that Jesus Christ has ascended
into heaven (seemingly a local heaven above Mount
Olivet,) with that body which was nailed to the
cross and laid in the grave, believes also that he is
sensibly present in the Sacrament of the Altar, and
that being thus present, he is there to be adored
under the symbols of the bread and wine which have
been converted into his flesh and blood by the con
secration of the priest. Christ, therefore, who is
sensibly in heaven (for in the words of the Fourth
Article he has ascended into heaven with flesh,
bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection
of man’s nature) is also present sensibly at the same
time upon a thousand altars. The proposition, if
not actually heretical, looks much like a contradic
tion in terms : but as it does not formally controvert
or contradict any positive statement of the Thirtynine Articles, the defendant is entitled to an ac
quittal. Had this sentence of acquittal been pro
nounced without further comment, Dr M’Neile and
they who go with him would have suffered much less
distress, or perhaps would not have been distressed
at all. But the Judicial Committee was probably
not sorry to avail itself of the opportunity of en
larging the basis for the clergy by admitting as
much vagueness as possible in their engagements ;
and the means which it adopted for this purpose
was the assertion that the subject was one which
can never be really comprehended by anybody, and
that, therefore, a precise definition of the terms em
ployed in the treatment of it is an impossibility.
“ The matters to which they relate,” the Judicial
Committee insists, are confessedly not comprehen
sible, or very imperfectly comprehensible, by the
human understanding. The province of reason as
�on the Resurrection.
11
applied to them is, therefore, very limited, and
the terms employed have not, and cannot
have, that precision of meaning which the charac
ter of the argument demands.”
The plain inference of all indifferent persons must
be that the Judicial Committee of Privy Council
regards the subject as one which it is better not to
speak about, and therefore also not to think about,
or, at the least, as one on which no churchman
should censure or tease another. To argue upon
it requires that the terms used should carry with
them a precise meaning: but, as the Judicial
Committee holds, from the nature of the subject
they cannot be thus accurately used, and con
sequently the time spent in thinking or speaking
about it must be time wasted. It is, of course,
significant that the highest tribunal of the Church
of England should thus mark as useless or unpro
fitable the doctrine of the nature of the presence
of Christ in the Eucharist. But the declaration
of this tribunal is of greater importance in its
bearings on the traditional theology of the Chris
tian Church and of particular sects or parties in it.
It is not to be supposed that the large and powerful
section in the English Establishment, known popu
larly as Evangelicals or Low Churchmen, should fail
to see the danger into which some of the most im
portant articles of their creed are drawn; and we
can understand the eagerness with which Dr M’Neile
comes forward to repel this assault on what he
regards as the very foundations of the Christian
Faith.
For myself, and for the cause I strive to serve, I
am rejoiced that the Dean of Bipon has, in such
clear and unequivocal language, summoned his
�12
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
brethren, and, indeed, all Christendom to the light.
There is now some prospect that ages of talking
and disputing may be followed by a grave and
calm discussion of the point at issue, and, as that
point is alleged to be an historical fact, by a final
determination whether it be indeed a fact or not. To
those who are simply anxious to ascertain the truth
of facts, it is a matter of supreme indifference how
the issue comes to be raised. The Apostle of the
Gentiles was thoroughly aware that some preached
Christ from motives which were anything but
creditable; but, so long as Christ was preached, he
was content and glad ;*and I confess a satisfaction
not less complete on learning that the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council have been enabled by
a few passing remarks to accomplish that which
the most outspoken of liberal thinkers thus far,
it would seem, have failed, with all their efforts,
to achieve. Whether the trepidation excited by
these remarks is due in any measure to the position
occupied by the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of
the land, I do not care to ascertain. It is enough
that, by some means or other, the great question
between the traditionalists and their opponents
should be put in a fair way towards final settle
ment. I readily avail myself, therefore, of the
opportunity furnished by the letter of Dr M’Neile
to the Times, and, as it is of paramount importance
that his general argument should not be misrepre
sented, I shall take his statements seriatim, so that
my readers may at once see all that is involved in
them.
But at starting it may be said, without any fear
of wronging the Dean of Ripon, that all his state
ments resolve themselves into the one proposition
�on the Resurrection.
ij
that the foundation of his religion is a certain fact
on which the human reason can be fully exercised,
I and which must be ascertained and accepted on
similar grounds to those on which we accept any
r historical facts whatsoever. With this proposition
there can be no tampering; its value is gone if it
has to undergo any modification. We are not to
take the fact as meaning at one time one thing and
at another time another thing; if a term which we
employ denotes a thing which, so far as all history
tells us, is subject to certain conditions, we are not
to take it as denoting something which exhibits
very different conditions. If we do, our conclusions
xcannot possibly rest on evidence, and, if they do not
rest on evidence, they are worthless. Now Mr Ben
nett, following a large, indeed by far the largest, por
tion of that which is called Christendom, asserts that
the risen body of Christ (his flesh and his blood) is
present m the sacrifice of'the Eucharist; and the
Bean of Ripon maintains that this proposition
spikes at the very root of Christianity as he under
stands the term If it may be maintained that the
actual body of Christ, that body with which he was
crucified and was laid in the grave, and with which
he rose again, is present in a hundred or a thousand
places at the same time, what proofs, he asks, have
we that he was ever raised at all ? It must here be
remarked that Dr M’Neile summarily casts aside
all those more or less ingenious methods by which
some interpreters and commentators have endea
voured to accommodate their positions to the
character of the evidence which they have at their
command He will have nothing to do with the
theories which tell us that we do not really know
what flesh and blood are, and which imply or
�"The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Neile
affirm that our knowledge cannot possibly deter
mine whether or not a body of flesh and blood
may become visible and invisible at will, may
pass through rocks or closed doors, may be free
of the law of gravitation, and may or may not be
present in many places at the same time. Thus
much certainly may be said for the commentators
who frame such theories, that, if they are justified
in forging the first links of their chain, there is no
reason why they should not add the last. If a body
of flesh and blood can live without food or drink,
a,nd without the discharge of any of those bodily
functions which we are disposed to regard as essen
tial to life, there seems to be no sufficient warrant
for denving that it may be present at the same
time in "more places than one, or even that it may
be ubiquitous. But, if this be so, it also follows
that we know nothing whatever of flesh and. blood
and body, and that we are using terms with an
elastic meaning, which may be stretched and
modified at our will. But . the nature of the
argument, if it is ever to satisfy the human mind,
requires that the terms should be used with pre
cision; and, if this cannot be done, then it is
obvious that no reasonable belief can possibly issue
from it. |
Against the methods of such commentators JJr
M’Neile enters, therefore, an emphatic protest. With
him terms are not to be modified and altered to suit
the needs of theological arguments. We know what
flesh is and what blood is, and we know what is
meant by a body of flesh and blood; and when we
speak of any of these bodies, we are not to predi
cate of them conditions of which human experience
can furnish no example, for it is obvious that the
�on the Resurrection.
human mind cannot possibly have proof of these
conditions except from experience. If there may
be a hundred or a thousand conditions of bodily ex
istence of which human experience gives us no in
formation, it is self-evident that the whole subiect
is removed beyond the province of human reason.
JLhus far experience seems to show that a human
body cannot be m more places than one, cannot pass
trough solid matter, cannot live without food, and
without the waste which is implied in the need and
the assimilation of food; but if, nevertheless, such a
body can be ubiquitous, or live without food or
walk on the sea or float in the air, there is abso
lutely no warrant of reason why it should not be
present at the same moment on all the altars of
C ristendom If this is what is meant by terms
v which seem to speak of the risen body of Christ it
is clear that we have and can have no evidence of
rJ-+ire
may receive the assertion on
faith but it will be to us an assertion with regard
to which human reason can have no function, and
with inference to which there can therefore be no
Such an assertion Dr M’Neile rejects
with abhorrence. His mind, his human reason, iust
thoroughly satisfied. He is certain that the
Being never meant that it should not be
satisfied. That which God needed was the free
assent of the human mind, and this assent cannot
uXe to tost “ Whi0“ “
is ob™us]y
Pr M+NeJlej 1S sPeakin& of course, of historical
facts, not of dogmas which may possibly refer to
sibkal RUthS’ WhfC1l are confessedly incomprehen« t 1S ,areful to contrast the one with the
other.
Let the subject under consideration,” he
B 2
�16
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
says, “ be ‘ The Trinity.’ Here we can have no in
fallible proofs. We may have, indeed, and we have
clear revelation, reasonably attested to be revelation,
and therefore entitled to acceptance on authority;
but the subject-matter is confessedly not comprehen
sible, or very imperfectly comprehensible, by the
human understanding. The province of reasoning
as applied to it is therefore very limited, and the
terms employed in revealing it have not and cannot
have that precision of meaning which an argument
between man and man demands.
If I were criticising the Dean of Ripon’s letter as
a whole, I might point to the strange conclusions
involved in these words. His own opinion is clear
enough, but it is scarcely in accordance with some
facts which are certainly historical. .One of these
facts is that a large majority of Christendom has
for an indefinite length of time held that the subject
of the Trinity in Unity may undergo the most minute
dissection and be mapped out in terms employed
with a scientific accuracy of meaning. Each of the
three Divine Persons may in himself be incompre
hensible : but it is nowhere said that the doctrine
propounded concerning them is incomprehensible
also. On the contrary, no document can be pointed
out which is in form more severely technical than
the Athanasian Creed. There is no sort of intima
tion that the terms employed in it have not and
cannot have that precision of meaning which an
argument between man and man demands. It
may not be easy to see what attestation there can
possibly be for this revelation beyond the authority
of those who drew up and imposed this symbol on
Christendom; but it is something to know that in
spite of this rigid outlining of the whole of this
�on the Resurrection.
17
subject, which can come only from the most perfect
familiarity, the Dean of Ripon confesses that, while
in some way or other he believes the dogma, he
cannot comprehend it at all, or that at best he com
prehends it very imperfectly; and, moreover, that in
spite of the seeming precision of the several terms
used in the Athanasian Creed he cannot ascribe to
them any such character. In short, he admits that
his own notions on the subject are altogether misty,
and that from the nature of the subject it is im
possible that they can be anything else but misty.
It follows that the dogmas of the Incarnation, of
Atonement, Mediation, and Justification must all be
placed in the same class. For none of these can we
have any infallible proofs. The very gist of the
arguments urged by Dr M’Neile and the theologians
of his school or party generally is that the unaided
human reason could never have worked its way to
those doctrines : that their subject-matter is not
comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible,
by the human understanding; and, therefore, of
those dogmas also our notions must remain misty.
In other words, the whole system of doctrines which
are popularly regarded as the essential character
istics of Christianity, relates to subjects on which it
is impossible to use terms with any such precision
of meaning as is absolutely demanded by arguments
between man and man, and about which, therefore,
by the confession of the Dean of Ripon there is not
much use in thinking or in speaking.
But clearly it would never do to admit that the
doctrines of Christianity are inaccurate or incomplete
statements of matters in themselves unintelligible,
and to leave it at the same time to be supposed that
Christianity is represented by a misty fabric resting
�18
Rhe Rev. Dr Hugh M'Nelle
on no solid foundations. It is the special complaint
of Dr M’Neile against the theologians of the Roman
-Church that they really cut away such founda
tions “by treating as analogous the mystery of
the Trinity and what they call the mystery of the
Sacrament.” In the latter he holds that there is
really no mystery at all. In the Eucharist • there
is no presence of any flesh or any blood, and he pro
tests therefore against the process by which “ under
cover of this assumed analogy, strange bewildering
phrases have been introduced and applied to flesh
and blood, ‘ spiritual,’ ‘ supernatural/ 1 sacramental/
‘mystical/ 1 ineffable,’ ‘ supralocal.’ ” We come, there
fore, very near to the point of supreme importance
in these words of Dr M’Neile. The mode of the
Divine existence may be a mystery far beyond the
province of human reason: but he insists empha
tically that flesh and blood are not so, and that
bread and wine are not so. In other words, flesh
and blood, bread and wine, are things about which
we can use terms with a precision of meaning which
leaves no room for the fancy that flesh is bread,
and blood wine, or vice versa. When we speak of flesh
and blood, we speak of things whose nature has been
ascertained by the whole experience of mankind,
and about which that experience has never varied;
for if it has varied, then unless the extent of that
variation has been ascertained, precision of meaning
is gone. If, in spite of our supposed experience
to the contrary, water may sometimes assume the
qualities of fire or wine, it is clear that we cannot
apply with any scientific accuracy the terms used in
defining water. Hence with regard to flesh and
blood, bread and wine, we can trust to no assertions
except such as are attested by human experience;
�on the Resurrection.
19
and hence, finally, the general experience of man
kind that flesh cannot be ubiquitous, and must,
in fact, be strictly local, furnishes an insuperable
objection to the dogma which represents the flesh
of Christ as present on a thousand altars at once.
On this point Dr M'Neile has not the faintest
shadow of a doubt. He stakes everything on the
issue with the most unhesitating confidence. The
flesh of Christ after as before his resurrection was
and is flesh, subject to precisely the same definitions
as those which we apply to all other flesh; and he
insists that if this be not so, “ Christianity crumbles
into a myth,” for, apart from this, we can have no
evidence whatever of the fact of the physical or
material resurrection of his body from the grave.
But I am concerned for the present not so much
with the results of his arguments as with the argu
ments themselves ; and I certainly have no tempta
tion to weaken the stress which Dr M’Neile in
his intense earnestness lays upon them.
Far
from attempting to disguise the fact that, unless the
physical or material or bodily resurrection of
Jesus is as well attested as the battle of Hastings
or the surrender of Paris to the German armies, he
is left without any real foundation for his faith, he
asserts again and again that this must be so, not
only for himself, but for all who call themselves
Christians, and that the statement is, in fact, a selfevident proposition. He holds it as incontrovert
ible that a rational demonstration of the bodily
resurrection of Jesus is essential to a reasonable
faith in Christianity.
It is impossible that a
more momentous issue can be raised for the tradi
tional theology of Christendom ; and it is happily a
tangible one. Unless we have adequate historical
�20
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Nelle
evidence for the resurrection of Christ’s body, Chris
tianity, Dr M’Neile insists, crumbles into a myth.
No room, I must here remark, is left for any misun
derstanding. In that significant, yet, for the tradi
tionalists not very satisfactory, book by which But
ler sought to establish the analogy between re
vealed religion and nature, no stress whatever is
laid on the physical reanimation of the body of
Christ; and the whole argument for human immor
tality with which the work begins seems altogether
to exclude the idea of any such reanimation. Butler’s
one point is that no living power is liable to
destruction; his argument (strange as it may
appear,) is that the body is a living power, and
therefore that it cannot be destroyed. Butler
is careful to distinguish most clearly this living
power from the material particles which we are in
the habit of speaking of as the body. The man who
has lost his arm or his leg makes use of a wooden or
a metal substitute; these limbs, therefore, have no
indispensable connexion with the living power; but
not only this,—the material particles which make up
the outward and tangible form are in a state of per
petual flux, and no particle remains in this sensible
frame for more than six or seven years. Hence the
particles which compose a man’s brain or stomach
have been assimilated by the living power, and been
rejected by it many times over in the space of sixty
or seventy years. That event which we call death
is, therefore, in one main feature, only a sudden
accomplishment of that which is being done by
slow process during that which is called life ; and
as -the living power which assimilated these
material particles was in no way affected by the
gradual loss of them, so there is no reason to sup-
�on the Resurrection,
11
pose that it is affected by the sudden deposition of
the whole. The living power by the very necessity
of the case lives on; and as it has made use of an
infinite series of particles, and as the resumption
of all these particles is a manifest absurdity and
impossibility, it follows that the particles which
are thrown off from or by the body are thrown
off once and for all. It follows further, and as a
self-evident inference, that if the human entity be
a living power, and if no living po"wer can be de
stroyed, then there is no such thing as the death of
the body, and therefore that there is no such thing
as a resurrection of the body in the sense of a re
animation of that which has been for a time inani
mate. Butler’s argument is, therefore, absolutely
opposed to the notion of a resurrection of the flesh,
except in a sense which they who believe in the re
surrection of the flesh would regard, and justly
regard, as explaining it away. Before it can be
brought within Butler’s system, flesh must be made
synonymous with body, and body must be defined
as the living power which can make use of mate
rial particles for a special purpose, but which
is quite independent of them, being itself alto
gether impalpable, invisible, inapprehensible by
the senses. It has been absolutely necessary for
me to bring out this clearly in order to show
that Dr M’Neile is not maintaining the same system.
In truth, he could not do so, for, although Butler
nowhere denies in terms the physical resurrection or
reanimation of the body of Jesus, all that his argument
can do is to prove that the reanimation of the flesh
was and is confined to the one instance of the resur
rection of Jesus, and that therefore his resurrection
is wholly unlike the resurrection which alone can
�22
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Neile
be predicated of ordinary men whose material forms,
not being speedily revivified, decay. Butler has,
indeed, an Anastasis; but it is a rising up, not a
rising again; and, as his argument gains nothing by
proving historically that in one instance a dead body
was, after a short time, reanimated, so he makes no
attempt to prove it. It must, however, be remarked
that, scientifically, his argument does tend to prove
* .
that the so-called resurrection of Jesus, if it occurred,
Swas the revival of a man who has been in a swoon.
According to Butler, a material particle which has
,
been rejected by or has passed from the body, has
been rejected or has passed from it for ever. At
the moment which we call death, it deposits all
material particles, and does this for ever; it follows
then that, as this may not be said of the body of
Jesus, the event called death had not, in this
instance, taken place, and that it was, therefore,
simply a case of suspended animation in the form
of coma or swoon. I am not concerned here with
the truth or the falsehood of Butler’s argument,
which philosophically acquires great strength from
the fact that it makes body, mind, soul, and spirit
to be one and the same thing, and thus, exhibiting
in the fullest light the absolute indivisibility of
man, makes his immortality depend on this indi
visibility, inasmuch as living power cannot be
destroyed. This may be true or not true; but it is
of the utmost consequence, in dealing with the
letter of the Dean of Ripon, to show that not all
Christians can be regarded as upholding his position
that, “ without the historical fact of the resurrec
tion of Christ’s body, Christianity crumbles into a
myth.” As a matter of fact, a book which is
approved and taken up for university and ordina-
�on the Resurrection.
23
tion examinations is found to uphold the thesis that
the reanimation of the body of Christ is not in the
least necessary for the existence of Christianity,
and to imply further, that such a reanimation
cannot throw the least light on the nature of
human life and so-called human death, or on the
rising upwards to a higher and better state of that
living power which, for a time, has been content to
manifest its existence by means of an assemblage of
material particles, which, by a constant process, it
assimilated and has thrown off.
This process manifestly cannot be stated as an
historical fact occurring at a definite moment; and
Dr M’Neile would doubtless regard this mode of
looking at the resurrection of Jesus as not less
abominable than a blank denial of it. His termi
nology and the terminology of Bishop Butler have
both alike the same merit of being perfectly clear ;
and the latter excludes the idea of a physical reani
mation of so-called dead bodies as much as the
formei' asserts the reanimation of the body of Christ
to be the sole and indispensable foundation of
Christianity. If I may seem to state the same
proposition more than once, it is because Dr M’Neile
himself exhibits his own convictions from as many
points of view as he can, in order to shut out all
possible misconceptions. Hence he fastens with
especial earnestness on the phrase used in the
Acts in speaking of the several Christoph anies
after the resurrection. “ We learn from St Luke,”
he says, “ that Christ showed himself alive after his
Passion by many infallible proofs (reK/zi/ptots),”
It is well known that the word TeKpp foiov denotes
absolute demonstrative evidence, or at least the very
strongest kind of proof of which any given thing is
�24
I' '
I
,
The Rev. Dr Hugh M.'Nelle
susceptible; and it is precisely such evidence as
this which he thinks that the Evangelists have left
to us of the Resurrection., Hence without the least
misgiving that a link or links in the chain of rea
soning. may be wanting, he cites the words which
Jesus is said to have uttered, “ Behold my hands
and my feet that it is I myself. Handle me and see,
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me
have,” and with these he quotes the words of Beza :
“ Sic hae actiones, loqui, ambulare, edere, bibere
reKp^pta sunt,” winding up with some sentences of
such extreme importance that I give them here in
full.
“ All such proofs were addressed to the senses of
the Apostles, and the result was a process of clear
and conclusive reasoning. The human mind is not
capable of clearer proof on any practical subject
than that which is derived from the testimony of
the senses and the consequent deductions of the
reason. Such was the proof, satisfactory, and, as far
as human consciousness is concerned, infallible, which
was given of the resurrection of Christ. Before his
death his flesh was similar to ours. “For as much
as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
he also himself likewise took part of the same,
avros Trapa7r\7]fflws perea^e rwv avra>v. His flesh, then,
was an object of sense, concerning which men
might fairly reason, concerning which reasonable
men could not but reason.”
If these words mean anything, they mean that
we may predicate of the risen or reanimated body
of Jesus everything that may be predicated of human
bodies generally, or, in other words, of all flesh and
blood, and by parity of reasoning that we may not
predicate of it anything which cannot be predicated
�on the Resurrection.
15
of flesh and blood generally; for, if this be allowed,
the matter is at once removed beyond the province
of reason and the senses, within which the Dean of
Ripon insists that it is to be retained. Now, there
are certain things which must be predicated of the
bodies of all men. If we speak of them as eating
and drinking, we presuppose the processes and phe
nomena of digestion and excretion ; if we speak of
them as walking or moving, we presuppose not merely
exertion and consequent weariness, but exertion
and motion under certain definite and. invariable
conditions. If any one comes and tells us that
a man, like the cow in the nursery rhyme, jumped
over the moon, or that he walked through a six-feet
thick wall, or that he could show himself and vanish
at will, we should say at once that his statements
might possibly be true so far as his report of what
he thought he had seen was concerned, but that if
it was true, then the creature who did these things
was not made of flesh and blood, but had an organi
sation so entirely different from man, that no points
of likeness could be traced between the one and the
other. If we were told that Mr Disraeli had on
a given day spent many hours in walking round
and round Landseer’s lions in Trafalgar-square, we
might think it strange ; if we were told that he had
done this without hat, coat or boots, we might think
it still more strange, but we need not resort to any
further supposition by way of explaining the occur
rence than that he had lost his senses. But if we
were told that he had leaped up from the back of
one of these lions to the top of the Nelson column
and had repeated this exploit ad libitum, we should
have no hesitation in either dismissing the story as
an impudent lie or saying that the person who did
�26
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Nelle
this was neither Mr Disraeli nor any human being;
and that, as no such being had ever yet come within
the range of human experience, we must not only
disbelieve the tale, but even, disbelieve our own
senses if we fancied that we saw any such thing as
this. . It is altogether more likely that we should
be mistaken or that by some means or other we
should be made the victims of an optical delusion,
than that a creature who had a man’s body could
perform acts which all the results of human ex
perience would forbid us to predicate of any man.
In short, if we speak of a man, we speak of a being
who eats and drinks in order to renew the waste of
the bodily tissues and whose eating and drinking is
invariably followed by the process of digestion and
by its results; who cannot go through solid sub
stances or walk on water or float in the air; who
cannot make himself invisible or visible by any
apt of the will, but who must come and go, and in
either case must remain visible until he passes
beyond the range of vision or unless some object
cuts him off from the view of the spectator.
So long as our predication follows these laws or
results of human experience, we can treat it as
a strictly reasoning process which appeals directly
and absolutely to our senses. But, according to Dr
M Neile, there can be no reasoning process, and con
sequently no reasonable conviction, where these
laws or conditions are not observed; and thus he
adds with emphatic earnestness :
“ If, after Christ’s resurrection, his flesh had been
something altogether different,—if it had been
something not comprehensible, or very imperfectly
comprehensible by the human understanding,—if
the province of reasoning as applied to it had been,
�on the Resurrection.
27
therefore, very limited,—if the terms employed to
describe it had not, and could not have, that pre
cision of meaning which a proof of his resurrection
demanded,—had this been so, how could his resur
rection have been proved, and, if his resurrection
be not proved, reasonably and conclusively proved,
where is Christianity itself?”
I am not here concerned with the answer to this
question; but the extreme importance of the argu
ment compels me to repeat that, in Dr M’Neile’s
judgment, the province of reasoning with regard to
the risen body of Jesus is not very limited, that the
subject is not imperfectly comprehensible by the
human mind, and that we may, therefore, demand
.such reasonable and conclusive proof of the fact as
is in harmony with the whole course and character
of experience,—nay, that, in the absence of such
proofs, we are mere fools if we give credit to it.
To avoid all possibility of misconception or
injustice, I give the rest of Dr M’Neile’s argument
in his own words, and without breaking in upon
them with any comments :
“ But his flesh after his resurrection was appealed
to as matter of sense and argument and proof, and,
therefore, it was quite comprehensible by the human
understanding, and, therefore, the province of reason
as applied to it was perfect, and therefore the terms
employed to describe it had, and could not but
have, the precison of meaning indispensable for
establishing the fact that he was indeed risen from
the dead.
II Deny the clear and conclusive province of reason
as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and you
cannot prove the resurrection of his body.
�28
The Rev. Dr Hugh NT* Nelle
“Admit the clear and conclusive province of
reason as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and
you cannot prove any presence whatever of his
flesh in the Lord’s Supper. Nay, you can prove
its absence, for human reason is altogether com
petent to the conclusion that what cannot be seen,
or felt, or tasted, cannot be flesh, whatever else it
may be, and the question here is not about some
thing else, but about flesh.”
With this theological issue as between Dr M’Neile
and the Sacerdotalists I have nothing to do. My
business is with the propositions involved in his
words; and among these are (1) that the risen flesh
of Christ is quite comprehensible by the human
mind; (2) that the province of reason as applied to
it is perfect; (3) that unless we can predicate of
that risen flesh all that we can predicate of any
other flesh, and nothing more, the human reason
cannot be exercised upon it at all, and therefore
that on this subject there can be no clear and rea
sonable proof, and therefore no solid and reasonable
conviction, inasmuch as by the change of definition
we have substituted something else (whatever that
may be) for the thing defined,—and thus we should
find ourselves in the present instance professing to
speak about flesh while in reality we are speaking
about that which (whatever it may be) is not flesh
at all.
.Now nothing can be clearer, and to the human
mind and reason more satisfactory and conclusive,
than this. Certainly, if it be necessary to the defi
nition of flesh that it should be capable of being
seen, felt, and tasted, then the Sacerdotalists cannot
without absurdity and falsehood maintain that the
flesh of Christ is present whenever the sacrifice of
�on the Resurrection.
29
the Eucharist is offered, that is, in hundreds or in
thousands of places at once. But here we make one
more step in advance. Dr M’Neile’s argument is
here the same as that of the notification given to
weak brothers at the end of the Communion Office
in the Book of Common Prayer, that although the
elements are to be received by communicants kneel
ing, yet no adoration is thereby intended to be done
to them oh the score of any corporeal presence of
Christ in the Sacrament, inasmuch as it is against
the truth of his natural body that it should be pre
sent in more places than one, and his body, being in
heaven, cannot also be upon the earth. Hence
we are to conclude that the compilers of the Prayer
Book shared the conviction of Dr M’Neile, that the
risen body of Christ is subject to the laws and con
ditions to which other fleshly bodies are subject, and
that if we predicate of it that which may not be
predicated of other fleshly bodies, we either deny
its existence or convert it into something else, and
thus put it beyond the province of reason,—which is
not to be done without cutting away at the same
time the very foundations of Christianity.
Without entering into the question of historical
fact, we may here ask whether this position, emi
nently satisfactory though it be to the human rea
son, is altogether in accordance with the statements
in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Nei
ther from Dr M’Neile nor from the compilers of the
Prayer Book have we received any technical defini
tion of flesh and body; but we have already seen
that there are sundry things which cannot be predi
cated of human bodies, or of any flesh and blood
with which we are acquainted. Thus, for instance,
so far as human experience has gone, it is as much
c
�30
¥he Rev. Dr Hugh M'Nelle
a contradiction of fact to say that they can fly, or
go through a solid mountain, as it is to say that
they can be in more than one place at a time. So,
again, we should be bound to say that a being who
could subsist without food, or who could receive
food without being further subject to the processes
of digestion, could not possibly be a man, and that
the substance of which his body or form was com
posed, whatever else it might be, could not possibly
be flesh. But without going further than the Prayer
Book, we have not merely the statement already
cited that it is contrary to the truth of Christ’s natu
ral body that it should be present in more than one
place, but the assertion in the fourth Article that
he ascended into heaven with the same body which
was crucified and raised again from the grave,
and that this body consisted of flesh, bones, and all
things appertaining to the perfection of man’s
nature.* We cannot even conceive of living flesh
apart from blood; indeed, to use Dr M’Neile’s
formula, living flesh without blood, whatever it
may be, is certainly not that which we understand
by the term, and is a something or other utterly
incomprehensible by the human mind, and therefore
altogether removed beyond the province of reason.
Further, if any physiologist were asked to name
the various things appertaining to the perfec
tion of man’s nature, he would give to blood a
place quite aS prominent as that of flesh and bones,
* It has been urged by some, that the word blood has been
omitted in this article by a somewhat disingenuous evasion, in
order to avoid a formal contradiction of the expression of Paul,
that “ flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” All
that I have to do is to insist that blood is necessarily included
under the phrase “ all things appertaining to the perfection of
man’s nature.”
�on the Resurrection.
31
and, as of equal importance ^wi th these, he would
reckon perfect action of all the organs,—a perfect
action of the brain for the exercise of the highest
thought, and a perfect condition of the digestive
functions for the conversion of food into blood.
Other things may be not less necessary; but with
out these he would say that human nature cannot
exist, and that together with these there must be
certain conditions within which man must by his
very organisation be fettered. Thus he is formed for
walking or running on his feet, not for flying; he
may swim in the water, but he cannot walk upon
- it; he may leap for a few feet in the air, but he
cannot, rise through it except in a balloon. Now
when in the fourth Gospel we are told that after
Mary and two of the disciples had taken up their
position at the door of the sepulchre, she saw two
angels in white whom she had not seen on entering,
it may be imagined that the angels had come through
the solid rock.or earth; for no one has contended
that the bodies of angels consist of flesh, bones,
and other things appertaining to the perfection of
man s nature. But the body of Jesus after his re
surrection can appear and vanish at will. This is
so far common to all the Christophanies, that it is
unnecessary to specify instances. It can also go
closed doors, for it is an evasion, from which
Dr M Noile would doubtless shrink with horror^ to
say that anything else can be meant when in the
Johannine narrative we read that “when the doors
were shut, where the disciples were assembled, Jesus
came and stood in the midst.” It is ridiculous, if
not profane, to suppose that one who had just burst
the barriers of the grave should have to knock at
the door to ask for admission, and if the doors were
c 2
E
/
�32
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
open, it cannot be said that they were shut. Again,
his risen body, which moves by mere volition,
maybe seen and handled; but human experience
certainly knows nothing of any. man capable of
walking about while through his. hands and his
feet might be seen the perforations caused by
the nails used in crucifixion, and with a .wound
in his side so large that a human hand might be?
thrust through it. Further, unless he ascended into
heaven with these perforations and this wound, it
must be supposed either (1) that he had the power
of putting on the appearances of these wounas at
will so that they would thus be pretences rather
than realities; or (2) that these wounds were
gradually healed in the interval between the.
resurrection and the ascension, if according to
the Acts we are to assume that forty days passed
between the two events. Yet more, the body of
J esus can eat and drink; but the narratives
which speak of his doing so manifestly asciibe
the acts- not to any need of the sustenance,, but
simply to the desire of showing to the disciples
that he can eat and drink,—to prove, in short, that
he is not a ghost (whatever this may be), a fact
which at other times he bids them to test by handling
him. Here already we have a number of acts
predicated of the risen Jesus which could not
possibly be predicated, according to all human
experience, of any man whatsoever. Anj one
of them would be held universally to interfere
with the very definition of man, of flesh and o
blood. Lastly, the body of which these acts, utterly
impossible according to human experience and the
conclusions of reason, are predicated, and which
before the crucifixion has walked on the water,
*
�on the Resurrection.
33
leaves the earth from the top of a hill, and rises
into the air, until at last a cloud veils him from the
sight of his disciples, who are told by the two
men in white apparel who then appear, that he
has gone away into heaven.
Thus, far from having in the risen body of Jesus
a subject perfectly comprehensible by the human
mind and reason, the province of reason as applied
to it being perfect, we have something which utterly
baffles the human mind, and with regard to which
the province of reasoning is so limited as to pre
clude altogether that precision in the use of terms
which an argument between man and man demands.
I perfectly agree with Dr M’Neile that the question
is about flesh and not about something else ; nor have
I the slightest doubt that, “the human reason is altogether competent to the conclusion that what cannot
be seen, or felt, or tasted cannot be flesh, whatever
else it may be.” But, if I am to trust my reason at
all, I am equally sure that a being who can live
without food, or who can receive food without
digesting it, who can come and vanish and go
through closed doors at will, who can so modify his
form and features that those who have known him
best fail to recognise him, who can walk on water
and float through the air to a local heaven, is cer
tainly not a man with a body of flesh organised
with everything appertaining to the perfection of
man’s nature, whatever else he may be. He is
thus a person with regard to whom the province of
reason is very limited, and, indeed, cannot be said
to exist at all; and as, where the reason cannot be
exercised there cannot be reasonable proof and
reasonable conviction of a bodily resurrection, it
follows, according to the Dean of Bipon, that Chris
tianity has crumbled into a myth.
�34
¥he Dev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
Thus, without entering on the question whether
the Gospels or the Acts are historically trustworthy,
my task is accomplished. The Dean of Ripon insists
that all arguments between man and man require
complete precision of meaning in the terms em
ployed ; and we have seen that every one of the
terms employed in speaking of the risen body of
Christ is used in the Gospels and the Acts
with as little precision of meaning as any of
those which, when used by Sacerdotalists who
maintain the doctrine of transubstantiation or
any kindred dogma, Dr M’Neile rejects as inaccu
rate and worthless.
We have also seen that
there is no ground or warrant in the New Testa
ment for the assertion of Beza that the actions
of speaking, walking, eating, and drinking are
physical and sensible proofs that the risen body
of Christ was the body of a man, a body of flesh and
blood. Were we, I repeat, to see before us now a
being who could eat and drink, but who needed not
to do either and in whom these acts would not, or
need not, be followed by any process of digestion,
who could walk as men walk, but who could do so
on water and in the air as well as on land, and who
could pass through solid substances, we should say
that, whatever else he might be, he could not be a
man, and that his body could not possibly be com
posed of flesh, blood, and bones like our own. We
should say this, even if we saw such a being with
our own eyes ; but how much time would it take
before we could convince ourselves that we were
not under a delusion, or cheated, or duped, and how
much longer would it be before we accepted any such
descriptions and gave credit to them as facts on the
testimony of others ? If we heard any persons bear
�on the Resurrection.
35
witness to the existence of such a being, how would
this differ from the evidence of those Homeric persons
who saw Venus and Mars mingling in the battles of
men, and saw not the blood but the ichor stream
ing from their wounds ? We have no need, there
fore to examine the testimony, if any such there be,
unless we abandon the position which Dr M JNeile
Insists that we are bound to maintain. We. are
dealing, he says, with things which come strictly
within the province of reason.; and we have seen
that the various actions attributed in the Gospels
to Jesus after the resurrection, and indeed before
it, show that, whatever his body may have beenit was a body which was essentially not that of a
human being.
But Dr M’Neile pleads that his flesh after his re
surrection was appealed to as matter of sense and
argument and proof.''. We have seen that if it was
appealed to, the appeal was made to something not
more really identical with human .flesh than the
“ corpus Christi ” after the bread has in the Eucharist
undergone consecration. But what knowledge have
we that any such appeal was made ? It is singularly
significant that, although in the apostolic discourses
in the Acts the fact of the resurrection of Jesus is
asserted, no reference is made to any of the incidents
which in the Gospels and in the first chapter of the
Acts are said to have accompanied the crucifixion,
the resurrection, and the subsequent Christophanies.
Of only one man have we at first hand the state
ment that he had “ seen the Lord.
That man
Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles; but we know that
the instance to which he refers was a. vision, and
we might be justified therefore in inferring that the
other Christophanies of which he speaks belong to
�36
’The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Nelle
events of the same class. But of what use in any
case is his testimony to Dr M’Neile, seeing that Paul
is the one who emphatically asserts that flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and that
theiefore, we shall all be changed, in other words,
that we shall pass into conditions with regard to
k-k ^1G ^erms empl°yed cannot have the precision
which arguments between man and man demand ?
But how will it be, if for a moment we suppose that
Paul meant to refer to historical events ? The narra
tive of the .Acts states tha,t at some period soon after
the ascension the whole number of disciples was
120; it also says that the Apostles as they gazed
upwards from Mount Olivet learnt from the two men
m white apparel that the Jesus whom they had seen
ascending should descend again in like manner for the
final judgment, the inference indubitably being that
m the interval no earthly eye should ever see him,
except possibly in trance or vision. In fact, the
coming of the Comforter, which was declared indis
pensable to their spiritual life and growth, was made
dependent on his absence. But Paul, while men
tioning certain Christophanies, some of which may
possibly be among the instances mentioned in the
Gospels, says that in one case he was seen by above
500 brethren at once, thus implying that the whole
number of the disciples considerably exceeded 500,
and adds that he was after this seen of James, then
of all the Apostles. In other words, these mani
festations took place after the ascension, i. e., after
subsequent to which the Apostles were
old that there would be none until the final
manifestation for judgment; or else they were
mere visions.
Hence, as I have been obliged
to maintain in my ‘ English Life of Jesus,’
�on the Resurrection.
37
« either Paul’s statement in an undoubtedly genuine
epistle is delusive, or the narrative in Acts 1 is a
credulous imagination, and from this dilemma there
is no escape.” (P. 334.)
But the book of the Acts is the only one from
which we obtain any information about the so-called
witnesses to the resurrection.* I need not here go
over the proof, which I have fully given in the
‘English Life of Jesus,’ that we have not the evidence
of any of them. All that we have is a number of
traditions or narratives, written by whom we know
not, and the composition of which even Dr Tischendorf cannot carry back nearer than fifty or sixty
years to the period of the crucifixion. But, as I have
been compelled to show, it would make no difference
if he could take them further. The narratives
are themselves inconsistent, contradictory, and
in many instances (and these the most important of
all) mutually exclusive, and therefore unhistorical.
We are therefore, by the canons laid down by Dr
* Of one sentence in Dr M’Neile’s letter to the Times I have,
thus far, taken no notice. It is that in which he says, that we
learn from St Luke that Christ shewed himself alive after his
Passion,” &c. The meaning of this phrase is, that the book of the
Acts was written by the author of the third gospel. On any show
ing, however, Luke, if he wrote the third gospel, was not one _ ot
the Twelve, and there is nothing but a mere popular tradition
which speaks of him as one of the seventy. The statement seeks
to arrogate for the third gospel and for the Acts an authority
which they do not possess. There is no evidence that Luke wrote
either: nor is it necessary for me to do more than to cite the pas
sage relating to this alleged fact in my ‘ English Life of Jesus :
“ To assume identity of authorship from the similarity of two pre
faces in an age when pseudonymous writings were as numerous as
falling leaves in autumn, is an excess of credulity. The gospel
of Luke bears no resemblance, in point of style, to the preface to
that gospel, and the preface to the Acts is not much in harmony
with the language of the book which follows it. A conclusion
�38
^he Rev, Dr Hugh M'Nelle
M’Neile, driven to the conclusion that for the nhvsical resurrection of Jesus we have absolutely no
evidence whatever.
J
That this conclusion is the death-blow of Chris
tianity, I am really not at all concerned by the argu
ment to say. It may be fatal to Christianity as
conceived by Dr M’Neile ; but the term is ulforunately, or fortunately, an elastic one, and, as in the
dSn V
bl°°d’
we need an accurate
°£ the ternL Tt 1S P°ssible that in a sense
which to others, and perhaps hereafter to himself
may be very real, Christianity may continue to
exist apart from a foundation which “is seen to be
one of imagination, not of fact. Certain it is that the
Christianity of Butler’s Analogy does not need it •
and by the side of the English Bishop of Durham
just as plausible (if not more reasonable) would be that some
writer quite distinct from the author of Luke and Acts has p™
fixed some verses of his own before two books which up to That
time exhibited no signs of identity of authorship However this
may be, when two alleged histories are proved to be not histories
two amhoX”pgnW32e8h329hTy
10 Comefrom one or from
two autnors. —lJp. 328, 329. I can but repeat here that the line nf
SoToTthe1^ Dr M’Neiie has chosen to follow, in his letter to the
enter ?nto the'T’?^ Tde Xt alt°gether unnecessary for me to
the tr>
^istorj.calinvestigation of the authorship and
department HX°f thV°spel narratives. But i/ that
denee AnS T conclusions are refuted, and the evierroneoX t
X7
is sbown t0 be inconclusive or
pushed°
eJy Iegard my task as alreadX accomwitb th a ?1S eJldence an<i these conclusions I have set forth
Remains for
“ “y ?Dglish Life of Jesus’’ and only
all Who in anTZ challenge the attention of Dr M’Neile, and of
of matters whi<-h
bls c°nvictions, to a work treating
indispensablv no r ^ede regards, or professes to regard, as
AbXe> all olher
7 -0?he fxistence of Christianity itself. .
the Times toXeXX?6 18 b°™d by tbe terms of his letter to
serious considXt-° h? pag6S 7 that work the most PatieQt and
to him as to the CV r
at 1 may not bave cause to ascribe •
cowaXevaMonCbrflan.E^ence Society, a disingenuous and
cuwaraiy evasion of a plain and an imperious duty.
XX
�on the Resurrection.
39
I may place the Swedish Bishop Tegner, who puts
into the mouth of the priest of Balder in his poem
of ‘Frithiof’ the following words :
A Balder dwelt once in the South, a virgin’s son,
Sent by Allfather to expound the mystic runes
. Writ on the Nornas’ sable shields, unknown before.
Peace was his war-cry, love to men his shining
sword,
And Innocence sat dove-like on his silver helm.
Pious he lived and taught, until at last he died,
And ’neath far-distant palms his grave in glory
shines.
The heathen priest goes on to say that his doc
trine may one day come to Norway; but the
Christian bishop clearly thinks that a man may
have a fair and true idea of Christianity, even
though he regards Jesus as one who never rose
physically from the grave, and who, moreover, died
a natural death.
Such a conception of Christianity certainly in
volves none of the difficulties with which Dr
M’Neile struggles in vain, and which the so-called
Christian Evidence Society deliberately and per
sistently ignores.
Am I to conclude that this conception is at once
the doctrine of the Church of England, and the
belief of English Churchmen in general ?
THOS. SCOTT,
11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,,
London, S.E.
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, TJpper .Norwood.,
London, S.E.
ETEChurch
^Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the
Cnurcn oi Knglana. By Presbyter Anglicanus.
Price 6d,
LETTER. AND SPIRIT. By *a CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
SCI Australia.1 HPrice4d
Price 6d.
By Richaed Dav1es Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers.
Ihoughts ON Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M. A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d.
A Hew Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post
Against Hero-Making in Religion By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
ls THE Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus. ” Price 6d.
Ihe Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 7d., post free.
1 n„ibFJCR^fS^D^ISC0UKAGEMENTS which Attend the Study of the Scriptures]
K1ght Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. 6d.
aHE Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation.
By a Beneficsd
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free.
Ihe Church and its Reform.” A Reprint. Price Is.
^^rice'ls03 °F Pngland Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham, Esq. A Reprint
Original Sin. Price 6d.
Redemption Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price 6d.
<< 1J.°.SPEL °o THE tCiNGDOM. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. 6d.
James and Paul. A Iract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d
Law and the Creeds. Price 6d.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks.
By Ed. Vansittart Neale, M. A. and M.R.I. Price Is
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy. By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d.
JLhe bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
G
^x^TH-EISf• By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &C.I
Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price Is.
I
1RA+?,'fiInn^I;J<E^>ARKP 0N ‘‘IHE Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Annol
Yr, J a
by a D1Smtary of the Church of England. Price 6d.
J
0F Natuee and Religion-Good and Evil. By a Clergyman
,n °F THE Church of England. Price 6d.
commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators.
FpJr
Parts- Pnce 6d- each Bart.
RiX^CrSATION-°3 Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord
THF
Norwioh- Bart I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
of England1 Priced P>IVINE' By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Churc#
r^A™™^E»AETICI,ESr,ANI> THE Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense
By a Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price 6d. each Part.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Dean of Ripon on the physical resurrection of Jesus in its bearing on the truth of Christianity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Scott, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 39, [1], p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway and part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. Critique of a letter from Hugh M'Neile, Dean of Ripon to The Times, 24 June 1872, on the Bennett judgement [i.e. W.J.E. Bennett.]. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5485
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Dean of Ripon on the physical resurrection of Jesus in its bearing on the truth of Christianity), 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
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ- Resurrection
Morris Tracts