1
10
1401
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/38563ac4d42bf1fe55cef04b927dfb9c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Uum-o9CVrb2IgHYpPyEV18I5S%7EXquttQjqsSWSvQEgRPXsW8NV%7EJeRfqsoFvzxO1F6%7E7HfX%7EEzLCkDrpN8CR6sb1GvzG6%7EJag4fw%7Ev6CF6wUm9Sv-ZttrQs57enDBzhMdeNuZscYLr2TljxqcTmMVscUQz25euPgsQhfGFNp041rH8YSEnWLZ54aVQIC%7EWpz8CoEAnH12bx8p9600Tcv96aQKbnSyxrJxPNXzazW9TNDZiOSVfspzi3PoypgKvAGuN5jkARfJqibkGeub9wE6FR306cAFpC7QdKrOKDOZ2ARTKVnJQ9Zr77Qxn--OBfSsgAY%7EcQIMBiEICdMlwjLdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
34f97f0df00dbc7e16a6cf61bdf56dd5
PDF Text
Text
REASON v. RATIONALISM
PREFACE TO THE SERIES
We propose in this series of papers to consider and
answer various objections to religion and the super
natural which one hears expressed at the club, the
“pub./’ the workshop, the debating society, and the
street corner, and which underlie much of the writing
in the secular press—objections that are neither subtle
nor profound, but which have a certain surface plau
sibility that i ecommends them. Many are gratuitous
assertions, dictated, perhaps unwittingly, by a desire to
escape the consequences which a conscientious faith
entails ; others spring from mere ignorance, or mental
confusion, or inability to follow abstract reasoning ;
others, again, from misreading of history. Trivial as
they commonly are, they need an explicit refutation,
for they impress unthinking minds and by constant
repetition acquire a sort of prescriptive claim to be
accepted. The Bellman’s dictum—“What I tell you
three times is true ”—suggests a style of argument very
frequently met with in anti-religious propaganda.
�No. -2,.
WHAT
IS
THE
GOOD OF
GOD?
“Earth’s crammed with heaven,
And every common bush afire with God ;
But only he who sees takes off his shoes.”
E. B. Browning, Aurora Leigh.
“ Our thoughts come nearer to God’s reality than our speech
does, and He is yet more real than we can think.”—St. Augustine,
Ou the Trinity, vii 6.
CONTENTS
PAGE
There is no sign of a Creator in the Universe ...
3
The Idea of Creation is based on a mistaken inference .
3
Creation is an impossible concept........................................ 4
Chance may account for the Universe, thus making the
notion of Design in Creation gratuitous
...
6
5. Chance, plus unlimited Time, can explain the order
ascribed to Creation......................................................... ?
6. A Creator is unnecessary to produce Life....
9
7. Why a Personal Creator rather than “Unknown Causes ” ? 10
8. The proofs of Creation are not convincing
.
.
.11
9. Creation cannot at any rate be proved from Causality . 13
10. Belief in a Creator is traceable to Fear .... 14
11. Belief in a Creator is due to Ignorance .
.
12. Many eminent Scientific Men reject Creation .
.'
I7
13. Science alone gives certitude, so Creation remains a
hypothesis
14. Creation depends for proof on Philosophy, a system now
discredited
20
15. Amid rival theories, Scepticism is the safest course .
22
Appendix ....
1.
2.
3.
4.
-24
�What is the Good of God ?
3
1. There is no sign of a Creator in the Universe.
Science in these latter days has progressed wonderfully :
the properties of nature have been thoroughly in
vestigated : even invisible forces have been detected
and controlled: but nowhere, on earth or in the
skies, has man come across God. Therefore we are
justified in denying what is in no way perceptible.
Even the Apostle agrees with us, for he admits—“ No
one hath seen God at any time” (i John iv 12).
A puerile objection this, which supposes all know
ledge to consist of sense-perception. A thing may be
known directly or by inference. Robinson Crusoe
knew that his solitude was broken by seeing, not a
human being, but a human footprint, and the objector
may examine his watch for a long time without de
tecting its maker’s presence. Yet he knows that the
maker exists. And, in like manner, we know of God’s
existence from His handiwork. Design, or adaptation
of means to end, implies a Designer.
2. The Idea of Creation is based on a mistaken
inference.
God, ex hypothesi, in a unique conception. Therefore
His existence cannot be inferred from common physical
relations of effect and cause. Show me a real Creator
at work on earth, and I shall be more ready to admit
a heavenly one. Because matter may be arranged by
man in different forms, it does not follow that it can
be brought into existence.
The analogy between the watch and its maker and
the universe and its Creator is simply an application of
the general law on which the argument is really based,
viz., that every effect is due to a proportionate cause.
If the various products of human activity point to
adequate causes in the minds and manual skill that
achieved them, so, we conclude, must the wonderful
haimony and order of the visible universe. It is the
expression of the Mind of God, and, as Kepler, the
great astronomer, said : “ All science is the reading of
God’s thought after Him.” The question of actual
�4
What is the Good of God?
creation in the strict sense does not enter into the
argument here, which simply proves that, there being
manifest purpose displayed throughout the Universe,
such purpose must be due to an adequate Cause, sc.
an intelligent Designer.
3. Creation is an impossible concept.
(1) From nothing only nothing can come—“Ex nihilo
nihil fit.” But creation supposes nothing to turn into
something!
We grant that self-creation is an impossible idea : the
axiom quoted merely means that nothing can cause itself
to exist, not that a thing existing in the Divine Mind
cannot be given actual existence by the Divine Power.
God does not take nothing as if it were a thing actually
in being and give it another shape, &c. When finite
creatures try to produce anything, they can only succeed
in effecting certain changes and combinations in already
existing matter. But an infinite Power can do infinitely
more than we can ; it can produce existence where pre
viously there was none. If it could merely change and
not create, it would differ from our power in decree
only, and not in kind. As things are, the divine power
of creation is not only infinitely greater than ours, but
so peculiar to God that it cannot be communicated to
creatures. We do not profess to say how creation is
effected: that is still a mystery, but it is much less
mysterious than self-creation, or an effect without a
cause, would be.
(2) Spencer declares that the creation of matter “out of
nothing” is incomprehensible,for sue)i a notion involves
the production of a relation in thorn%ht between something (the Creator) and nothing (1
'he object-not-yet
created); of a relation, therefore ;in which the one
wemfor is non-existent; consequently , of an impossible
relation.
y
aSnosticiS„i!ilgOOd>.SPeCimen °£ the mis«‘«ss of the
agnostic philosopher, who prided himself on the
ong>nahty and independence of his mentd processes'
�What is the Good of God?
5
A child can see that the same “ impossibility ” arises
whenever an idea is translated into fact. If Spencer’s
reasoning were sound, Tennyson could not have written
his poems. Before they were composed and written
they did not exist. Therefore the poet in composing
them produced a relation between himself and some
thing non-existent ! The fact is, of course, that the
materials of the poems existed z/z the mind- of the poet
before they were actually composed, and, in the same
way, the universe, before creation, existed in the mind
of God.
(3) Eternal evolution is at least as simple and rational
a concept as creation out of nothing. Therefore, the
latter hypothesis cannot be said to hold- the field. We
postulate, then, eternal matter and force acting from
eternity according to immutable laws. By the inter
action of this matter and force the universe is gradually
evolved, until at a certain point of evolution equilibrium
is disturbed, the whole cosmos dissolves into chaos and
the process starts afresh. So that instead of a continuous
evolution, which, starting from eternity, must long ago
have reached its term, we have a series of alternate
cycles of construction and ruin. Thus the line of cause
and effect is unbroken and unending, and the impos
sible conception of a self-existing cause is done away
with.
This argument, excogitated by the Germans, Strauss
and Buchner, is no sounder than Spencer’s. For this
eternal matter-and-force either had in itself sufficient
reason for its existence from eternity, or had not. If it
existed of itself, then it is the First Cause, and a per
sonal one, for intelligence, which undoubtedly exists in
the world, cannot be accounted for by an unintelligent
First Cause. If it did not exist of itself, and there was
nothing to give it existence, it is an effect without a
cause—a contradiction in terms.
Again, this matter-and-force substance must originally
have been either homogeneous or heterogeneous. If
homogeneous, the existing diversity of species is un
accounted for ; if heterogeneous, then there were
�6
What is the Good of God?
originally a multitude of self-existing things, whereas
only one such thing can be conceived.
Finally, from mere matter and force there cannot
arise life, still less the rational soul of man. It will be
noticed that these materialists who deride philosophy
and plume themselves on scientific fact, yet build up
their systems on pure metaphysical notions such as the
Absolute and Relative, the nature of Causality, the idea
of the Infinite. A little acquaintance with the Aristo
telian philosophy which they sneer at would have saved
them from many childish misconceptions, a thousand
times explained in the past.
4. Chance may account for the Universe, thus
making the notion of Design in Creation
gratuitous.
You are rather too hasty in postulating Design in the
Universe. There may be another cause. What is there
Chance cannot bring about ? Very often a man’s
course of life is quite altered by chance. Great discovene the spread of disease, 'devastating fires are
often due entirely to Chance.
*J
'
" ch’ance hi“nd 7‘her Si”ilar ar«umen‘s ‘he word
hance is used incorrectly. Scientifically speaking
' ere is no such thing as chance, if the te™ ft
°CC~ °f e«;CtS -hhoS ad
loosely tl X(
tmetlmeS the word is employed
mechanics!
i"gulsh what is due to causes merely
iron what ’iXZ “fX With°Ut °Ur faow'edgel
Everything hat iX u kn°™ intellig“‘ Purpose
“-■7inggX
1 eo SNat:TiaaU3e £
animal instinct or Jut laws> the action
‘he Creator. Bu ”XelT V ’ “V”6 '"'“vention of
dentally combiX maf o
”e,?hanicaI fo'ces acci-
which simulates design as X
y Pr°dUCe an effect
host mould a iuttilg ’ 1 r ^'n Snd wind al’d
human face. This result n
1° * 'C sembi™ce of a
peaking relatively, not absoXlXXX? ‘X6'
ty' To ascribe action
�What is the Good of God?
j
to “ chance,” meaning the absence of an efficient cause,
is to speak quite unscientifically, not to say foolishly; a
reproach which soi-disant scientists frequently incur/
5. Chance, plus unlimited Time, can explain the
order ascribed to Creation.
There are acknowledged “ freaks of Nature ”—chance
products of natural forces which exactly reproduce the
works of intelligence. Why should not the whole
harmony of the Universe be the result of the blind
working of the laws and properties oj matter, through
endless ages ? Given time enough, and the wonderful
facts of chemical affinity and repulsion, order and
harmony might evolve gradually out of initial chaos.
First premising that this hypothesis does not do away
with the necessity of a First Cause, to which matter and
its properties are due, we reply that the order of the
Universe emphatically requires Intelligence to account
for it. A strictly fortuitous concourse of atoms, even
endowed with invariable properties, will not do. All
the laws of mathematical probability are against it.
Let us examine this a little more closely. Instead of
taking' a quasi-infinite number of atoms, let us take
seven little stones which, arranged in especial order,
may represent the colours of the rainbow. How many
other different positions are possible ?
Let the little
stones be designated as a, b, c, &c. The first two have
only two possible positions :—
ab, ba.
The first three only 3 x 2—•
abc, bac, cab.
acb, bca, cba.
1 No one has pointed out more eloquently the universal reign of
causation than the agnostic, Huxley. After describing the sea
shore in a storm as a group of phenomena which the thoughtless
would ascribe to “chance,” he savs :—
“ The man of science knows that here, as everywhere, perfect
order is manifested ; that there is not a curve of the waves, not a
note in the howling chorus, not a rainbow glint on a bubble, which
is other than a necessary consequence of the ascertained laws of
nature ; and that with a sufficient knowledge of the conditions,
competent physico-mathematical skill could account for, and indeed
predict, every one of those ‘ chance ’ events.”
�What is the Good of God ?
The first seven have 7x6x5x4x3x2=5040 possible
positions. With twelve little stones the number would
amount to 479,001,600; with thirteen, to more than six
thousand millions ; with fifteen, to over a billion ; with
twenty, to more than two trillions. The probability,
therefore, in this latter case, against hitting on one
special position is as two trillions to 1.
Here we have only twenty little stones, yet the
number of atoms in the whole world are innumerable.
The earth alone contains more than 2,700 cubic miles.
How many atoms would that make ? The sun is 333,000
times lai ger than the earth, Again, how many atoms ?
Our solar system is only a little part of the Universe
Celestial photography has already discovered a hundred
million fixed stars. It is altogether beyond earthly
arithmetic to calculate the odds against this definite
arrangement of matter, which we call the Universe
resulting from the interaction of the material atoms
composing it.1
On the hypothesis, therefore, that the original masses
of atoms were like an immense and chaotic sandstorm
rnming along the illimitable inane,” without any law
01 purpose impressed on them from without, who with
ny common sense could possibly imagine that they
°U S0 arranSe tbemselves as to form the majestic
and beautiful design of the Universe, so wonderful as1 a
whole and in its smallest detail. It would bea less
silly to assert that a child, if it hammered on the piano
Liszt’s"" ft ’ ""g114 “1(lmately Produce, note by note
Liszts Hungarian Rhapsody.” As a result tt,„
’
come Sth^nS “
‘o intelhgence.
Even the free^K "
with two°£ andlwo^pS 35?“ “ Ka die are 5 to r ;
if for a million years a mill;™? nd'veKronig has reckoned fhaf
attained the ag’ Tten X™
e
bo,rn ^ly, each of whijm
cast thirty dice twenty times it is nnf'S| a?^each minute of his life
ever obtain
™
�What is the Good, of God ?
9
a watch implies a watchmaker, and a palace an architect,
how can it be that the Universe does not imply a Supreme
Intelligence ? ”
We are all of us, atheists and agnostics included,
constantly judging of causes from their effects, and
ascribing to intelligence whatever shows marks of in
telligence. A page of intelligible print is a certain in
dication that a mind originated it. But the Book of
Nature is read by many who deny Intellect to its Author!
Nowhere is the fixed desire to escape from a Personal
Cause more evident than this appeal to blind laws
working through indefinite time. This conception is
so little “scientific” that a smattering- of arithmetic is
enough to dispose of it.
6. A Creator is unnecessary to produce Life.
The j>roof of God's existence which is drawn from the
necessity of an efficient cause to produce life is worth
less ffior it has been maintained by modern scientists
that life may originate from non-living matter.
Herbert Spencer says : “ At a remote period in the past
when the temperature of the surface of the earth was
much higher than at present, and other physical con
ditions were unlike those we know, inorganic matter
through successive complications gave rise to organic
matter.1 And Huxley asserts that if it were given him
“ to look beyond the abyss of geologically recorded
time ” he might “ expect to be a witness of the evolution
of living protoplasm from non-living matter.”2 Weismann, the great biologist, declares that spontaneous
generation, in spite of all vain efforts to demonstrate it,
“ remains for me a logical necessity ” ; 3 and finally
Virchow, speaking before the Science Congress at
Munich in 1877, said: “ There is indeed no positive
fact to prove spontaneous generation ever took place
. . . nevertheless the acceptance of this theory is the
only possible way of explaining the first living being.”
These various dicta are good types of the abandon
ment of scientific methods to which even eminent
1 Nineteenth Century, May, 1886.
2 Critiques and Addresses, p. 239.
'
3 £osrr)-s, p. 3^.
�IO
What is the Good of God ?
scientists resort when they leave their special domain.
Huxley, although owning that in the controversy
between bio-genesists and abio-genesists the former
were “ victorious all along the line,” 1 is content to state
his opinions unsupported by a single fact. Spencer,
with more solemn show of argument, states his personal
impression. The Germans imply, honestly enough,
that their determination not to admit the supernatural
forces them to maintain spontaneous generation. Yet
the whole negative force of scientific testimony is
against them. All the resources of science have been
employed to no purpose in the endeavour to produce
life, and Virchow himself proclaims : “ Never has a
living being, or even a living element—let us say, a
living cell—been found of which it could be predicated
that it was the first of its species.” 2 Finally, Professor
B. Moore, the celebrated bio-chemist, states positively :
“ The mode of production of living matter is character
istic, and cannot be brought about by the actions solely
of inorganic forms of energy.” 3
7. Why a Personal Creator rather than “ Un
known Causes”?
But why should I admit God ? He is not a fact of
exfieiience, with which alone Science deals. His exist
ence is merely inferred. And if I choose to “stick to
�What is the Good of God ?
11
my last” and concern myself with the material Universe
alone, saying of its origin—I know nothing: I ascribe
it to unknown causes, to energies of matter which may
well have existed under earlier and different conditions
—who can complain of my attitude ? Speculation is
not science.
The objection to such an attitude is that it is a
deliberate narrowing or blinding of the human intellect. It is like the proverbial conduct of the ostrich
in presence of danger. Man’s mind is compelled by
its constitution to search for truth and ultimate truth.
To'refuse to draw logical inferences from ascertained
facts, lest the knowledge thus obtained should be in
convenient, should humble pride or rebuke sensuality,
is a cowardly crippling of man’s highest faculty. The
position, once more, is an illegitimate claim on the part
of physical science to the whole sphere of knowledge.
There are many truths which are not within the pur
view of physical science. It is mock modesty to say
we cannot go farther than she leads us. That were to
limit all knowledge to the records of our senses. Our
senses tell us the world exists ; our minds tell us with
at least equal certainty that it had a cause. An un
known cause, in one sense, because it cannot be fully
comprehended ; but known at least as completely as
the force of gravitation is known, through its effects.
Finally, to appeal to material forces and energies, as
possibly existing in the beginning and capable of pro
ducing the Universe, yet of which matter has now no
trace, and which, moreover, contradict all we know of
matter, is surely to fly in the very face of scientific
method, which is solely concerned with the observation
of facts and logical deductions from them.
8. The proofs of Creation are not convincing.
At best, it is one hypothesis against the other : material
ists ascribe the Universe to the potentialities of eternal
matter; theists to the creative act of a personal God.
The proofs the latter advance do not as a matter of
�12
What is the Good of God ?
fad carry conviction to many reasonable minds, as
experimental or mathematical proofs do.
There are other forms of evidence no less valid than
mathematical or experimental proofs ; for instance, the
proof we call deductive or inferential. The proofs of
God's existence are of this nature, not such as exclude
all possibility of doubt, but such as make doubt or
denial unreasonable.1 And their cogency, as we have
already implied, depends much on the moral and
intellectual prepossessions of those to whom they are
addressed. Some of these arguments are philosophical,
some are scientific. We may take one of the former,
referring the reader for further information to books
quoted in the appendix.
The Principle of Causality which, rightly understood,
is an axiom, asserts that nothing can come into existence
except through the action of some adequate cause,
independent of itself. Now the physical universe has
had a beginning. Therefore it must have had an
external cause, capable of giving it existence and inde
pendent of itself. This conclusion is irresistible once
the premisses are granted. The first premiss is, as we
have implied, self-evident, i.e., it is seen to be true on
analysis of its meaning. To say that a thing has had a
beginning is to say that it once did not exist. There
fore, it must have been given existence by some other
thing, as existence is a necessary preliminary to action.
• ?^Td Premiss~that the Universe is not eternalis admitted by most competent scientists, both believers
nrfiv^atena uDU ThUS HUX1Cy Speal<S Of the visible
aS ' henomena, the very nature of which
,
theZmus^al
had a be§inning and that
y must also have had an end.”3 And Lord Kelvin
opinions, the° Empero^fdSessed^^1!8 T"®, utterinS hifidel
“You believe in my genius but
the following effect:
know of its existence by my victories ” A^h have,s,een k ? You
inference, yet, if one wzsfe/oneSt crtdkW7 *’ea?°nable
to chance or good luck.
Napoleon s victories
3 Lay Sermons, p, 13,
�What is the Good of God ?
13
says: “ Regarding the Universe as a candle that has
been lit, we become absolutely certain that it has
not been burning from eternity, and that a time must
come when it will cease to burn.” The scientific
law of the Dissipation of Energy makes it clear
that if the forces of Nature had started working in
eternity they would long have been exhausted.1 The
same argument may be suggested with equal cogency
as regards a single aspect of the Universe, sc. the
presence of life. Science teaches that in the first
stages of the existence of the Universe the temperature
was such as to preclude the possibility, even in germ,
of life as we know it, />., the power of self-motion.
Whence then did life originate ? Not from anything
lifeless, for “ you cannot get more out of a sack than
there is in it.” And therefore from some living Being
outside the Universe—viz., the First Cause—God.
9. Creation cannot at any rate be Proved from
Causality.
David Strauss denies the validity of all proofs of God’s
existence, because it is impossible to get beyond the
series of natural proofs. If every single thing has its
cause in another, this is a universal law which must
hold good always and everywhere, thus making it im
possible to reach an exterior cause.
An objection which denies the validity of rational
inference! A train passes before my window. It is so
long that I cannot see eithei- the beginning or the end.
I can only see that every carriage is drawn by another
and that evidently there must be some motive power,
and I naturally conclude that there is an engine in front
of the train. My conclusion goes beyond what I can
see. Strauss would say that my conclusion is wrong
1 Once we grant a First Cause, self-existent from eternity, the
eternity of the created universe becomes conceivable, for the" First
Cause may have been eternally creative. It is not easy to arrive at
a clear conclusion on such matters as these, for by a necessity of
our minds we cannot think of eternity except as infinite time
whereas it does not involve succession, as time does,
’
�14
What is the Good of God ?
for that very reason. He would admit that each
carriage was pulled by another, but would deny the
necessity of a locomotive. Is it credible ?
Others, again, affect a childish precocity, and assert
that as we seek the cause of all things, so we should go
further back and seek the cause even of God Himself.
But this is absurd. The law of causality only says :
“ Every effect must have a cause,” or, in other words :
“ That which is not self-existing must have the cause of
its existence in something else.” Does it not clearly
follow that a First Cause must exist, One whose essence
includes His existence ? This Being—God—exists
necessarily of Himself and of no other; to demand
a further cause for the self-existent is nonsense.
io. Belief in a Creator is traceable to Fear.
The only scientific way to investigate this question is
to go back to origins and study development—the
positive, historical method. According to ethnographists, religion took its start from the fears of
primitive man, excited by the terrible phenomena of
nature. As Horace says even of the Romans of his
time: “ When ffove thunders in the sky we believe in
the fad of his sovereignty.” 1
As usual, we are met by an unverified assumption.
There is no evidence in history for a continuous
evolution of man from a lower to a higher moral and
intellectual level. Indeed, what evidence we have
tends to prove that the human race started in a “ Golden
Age of some sort, from which it afterwards degeneiated. The Biblical narrative, containing the first revela
tion, is confirmed by the oldest literature in the world.
1 he only inference to be drawn from the fact that savages
attribute natural phenomena to their gods, is that they
relieve those deities to be immensely superior to men.
We cannot “scientifically” conclude that belief in the
existence of the gods actually arose from the pheno
mena, whether formidable or beneficent. It is mucl|
1 Odes, iii 5.
�What is the Good of God ?
1
I
i5
truer to say that fear (fear, that is, of an omnipotent
judge) causes disbelief in God. “ No one denies God’s
existence unless he has an interest in doing so,” says
Bacon. “ There is no God ” might often be para
phrased “ I wish there were no God, for I have reason
to fear Him.”
ii. Belief in a Creator is due to Ignorance.
The riddles of Nature gave rise to a belief in God.
It seemed simpler to seek their solution in a personal
agent than to account for them otherwise. But the
growth of science has explained things fully, and
experience has banished mere speculation. As a
general rule such credulity disappears with the advance
of learning. It was but natural in the savage, of
whom Pope writes:
“ Lo, the poor Indian whose untutored mind
Sees God in clouds or hears Him in the wind,'' &c.
Essay on Man.
This argument is characteristic of the methods of
certain modern scientists who hope by repeated unsup
ported assertions to give currency to their own peculiar
views. It also illustrates the inspired saying of St.
Paul : “ Scientia inflat ”—“ Knowledge puffeth up.”
It is full of an arrogance which is quite alien to the
spirit of true learning. The real wise man is too
conscious of the narrow limits of his own knowledge to
despise the ignorance of others. To these self-sufficient
sciolists may fitly be addressed the words of Job : “ Are
ye, then, the only men that there are, and shall wisdom
die with you ? ”1 As a matter of fact, whether we
count names or weigh merits, the witness to God’s
existence among men of science is overwhelmingly
great. Let us mention but a few of the more prominent
modern English-speaking scientific men, who, in spite of
their great learning, have retained their religious beliefs.
Amongst Physicists, Chemists, &c., we find Lord Kelvin,
Lord Rayleigh, Sir William Ramsay, Sir Henry Roscoe,
§ir William Crookes, Professor Balfour Stewart,
1 fob xii 2.
�i6
What is the Good of God ?
Professor P. G. Tait, Sir William Abney. Amongst
Mathematicians, Professors H. Lamb, A. C. Dixon,
George Chrystal, M. W. Crofton, G. M. Minchin, Sir
Oliver Lodge. Amongst Geologists and Palaeontologists,
Professors J. Geikie, W. Boyd Dawkins, H. G. Seeley,
Sir Joseph Prestwich, E. Hull, W. J. Sollas, Sir
Archibald Geikie. Amongst Biologists, Physiologists, &c.,
Professors G. J. Romanes, Augustus Waller, W.
Stirling, L. S. Beale, Sir Douglas Galton, Sir Jas.
Crichton-Browne, Sir Victor Horsley, J. Butler Burke,
Gerald Leighton, B. Windle. Amongst Astronomers,
Sir David Gill, Dr. E. W. Maunder, Professor H. H.
Turner, Dr. A. C. Crommelin, Professor Ellard Gore, Sir
Robert Ball, Professor S. Newcomb. In the Medical
Profession, Lord Lister, Sir Thomas Barlow, Sir Patrick
Manson, Sir James Y. Simpson, Sir Lauder Brunton, Sir
Samuel Wilks. Amongst Zoologists, Professor A. Sedg
wick, Sir Richard Owen, Professor G. H. Carpenter,
Dr. S. O. Harmer, Professor H. Macintosh. Amongst
Psychologists, Professor James Ward, Dr. J. C. Schiller,
Professor J. C. Murray, Professor H. L. Orchard.
We have not given all possible names ; we have not
included all the branches of Science ; we have not men
tioned men of past generations or of other countries, or
clergymen eminent in scientific research ; there are
enough and to spare here to give the lie to the
constantly repeated assertion that real learning is
incompatible with belief in God.1 One believer of
commanding eminence in Science would sufficiently
disprove it, and there are hundreds.
In strong contrast to the dogmatism of many pseudoscientists is the caution of the genuine pioneers and
discoverers With few exceptions these realize the
units of their subject and the inadequacy of their
A. HRel,^io1^ Beliefs of Scientists, by
by J. J. wLlsh ’ C?
Sciencc' Ist and 2lld series;
K. A. Kneller, S.J, translated by f M l^ttlf m'p'T Sfe'lC%f}
^graphical dictionary.
y
-Kettle, M,P„ and any full
�What is the Good of God?
*7
methods. Romanes declares (Nineteenth Century, June,
1888), the theory of evolution has done nothing but
“throw back the question of design from the facts
immediately observed to the causes subsequently dis
covered. And there the questions must be left by
science, to be taken up by philosophy”—for which
latter pursuit most “ popular scientists ” are singularly
ill-equipped. Speaking merely as a scientific man, Du
Bois-Reymond, who is an avowed materialist, has the
honesty to confess that, after all that science has done,
its verdict as to ultimate truths must be, “ We do not
know and we never shall.” Still more explicit is the
testimony of the late Lord Kelvin, one of the most
eminent physicists of the 19th century. He, if any one,
had penetrated into the deepest secrets of nature, yet
this is how he sums up his life-work, even within
the domain of science itself :—
“ One word characterises the most strenuous efforts I have
made perseveringly during fifty-five years : that word is failure. I
know no more of electric and magnetic force, or of the relation
between ether, electricity, and of ponderable matter, or of chemical
affinity than I knew and tried to teach to my students fifty years
ago in my first session as Professor.” 1
In the light of such testimonies, the absolute dicta of
Haeckel and his English vulgarisateurs, Clodd, McCabe,
Hird and the rest, may be rated at their true worth.
So far from belief in God resting on ignorance, it is
more imperatively demanded by every advance in
human knowledge.
12. Many eminent Scientific Men reject Creation.
No doubt many learned men have been believers, but
there are, and have been, many who are atheists. If
knowledge leads to belief in God, why do not they
believe ? No one can dispute the profound knowledge
of a Darwin, a Spencer, a Huxley, a Haeckel—yet their
great intellects and eminent talents left them, perhaps
even made them, creedless.
As we have just seen, the pursuit of Science, even
when attended by the greatest success, so far from
1 Speech on the occasion of his Jubilee, 1896. See Life, vol. ii,p,984.
�18
Whad is the Good of God ?
leading away from God, is quite compatible with full
acceptance of the supernatural. So the atheism and
agnosticism of many scientific men must be ascribed to
some other cause or causes. Some of these are un
doubtedly moral—belief in God implies recognition of
His claims, acknowledgement of certain limitations to
human liberty, and due responsibility for human action.
Some, again, are intellectual—every one has some philo
sophy, practical or speculative, and if his philosophy is
false, if it denies, for instance, the existence of absolute
truths, or the invariability of metaphysical laws, it
may easily blind him to the cogency of the proofs for
God’s existence. Add to this, that God has designedly
left those proofs such that, unlike mathematical truths,
they can be denied without obvious self-stultification ;
in other words, that good-will must enter into the act of
faith—and we have enough to account for the un
doubtedly disquieting phenomena of many powerful
intellects arrayed against the truth. If the boasted
methods of science were applied rigorously all round
and its due weight given to every form of evidence,
reason alone would lead to God. As Lord Kelvin said
to some University students in 1903 1 : “Do not be
afraid of being free-thinkers. If you think strongly
enough you will be forced by science to the belief in
God, which is the foundation of all religions. You will
find science not antagonistic but helpful to religion.”
Long ago Bacon expressed the same thought: “A
little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism • but
depth in philosophy bringeth men’s minds about to
leigion.
But to start, as many sceptics do, with
assuming as an axiom that there is nothing beyond
nature, is to close one’s mind to all possible evidence
The sclT'f3tUral_SUrely "Ot 3 scientific proceeding !
™ eXlP
SCle",Ce Pr°Pe‘-Physical science—is the
SS'X*’ are applicable “d
PP
’^>1099.
all leasoning processes on what* Essays: Of Atheism.
�If'hat is the Good of God?
19
ever subject. A sincere acceptance of the inexorable
and self-evident law of causality—“ Nothing can begin
to be without a cause independent of itself ”—would go
far to upset all the theories of the materialists.
13. Science alone gives certitude, so Creation
remains a hypothesis.
After all, “ seeing is believing.” As a matter of fact
the man of Science, as Huxley says, “ has learnt to
believe in justification, not by faith but by verifica
tion” lize believe vchat has been experimentally
proved. All the rest is the creation and, perhaps, the
mere figment of the brain.
This is the common talk of half-educated scientific
smatterers. Such men do not realize that a great deal
more than fact verified by experiment enters into their
knowledge. They talk glibly of the laws of nature—
which of them has ever seen such a law ? These
“ laws ” are, to quote Huxley again, “ the product of a
mental operation upon the facts of nature which come
under our observation, and has no more existence
outside the mind than colour has.”1 They discourse
learnedly, once more, about atoms, molecules, etherwaves of light, but all these things are mere postulates
of the reason. None of them has been seen or
measured. Disciples of Haeckel should remember,
though he himself frequently forgets, their master’s
descriptions of “purely scientific investigation,” viz.
“firstly, experience; secondly, inference.”* We must
insist again upon the reality of our purely inferential
knowledge. Philosophy is as truly a part of “ science ”
as is the study of natural forces, &c.: they differ only
in the fact that the former deals with ultimate causes of
phenomena, and the latter with proximate causes and
the phenomena themselves. The logical process that
determines the existence of the electric fluid is exactly
the same as that which demonstrates the existence of
God. To question the validity of our mental operations
1 Pseudo-Scientific Realism, p. 77. • Riddle oj the Universe, p. 6.
�20
What is the Good of God ?
or the power of our mind to acquire certain knowledge
is to destroy the possibility of Science itself.
14. Creation depends for proof on Philosophy, a
system now discredited.
At one time Philosophy was all in all, and Science
was hardly thought of. Bid since the time of Bacon
these positions have been gradually reversed, until in
most scientific circles Philosophy is only mentioned to
be laughed at. But without Philosophy there can be
no real proof of God's existence.
In order to criticize this statement properly we must
determine what is meant by philosophy. It is the
application of mind to the facts of experience with a
view to discovering their ultimate nature. Just as
Mathematics has its axioms, so Philosophy must have
its principles, certain assumptions, for instance, about
the power of the intellect to ascertain absolute truth, or
about the laws which govern the right use of the mental
processes. One system of Philosophy differs from
another according to the principles it starts with or the
piocesses it sanctions. If any philosophical system has
been disci edited, it is important to discover which it is.
The only systems which are known or studied nowadays
in scientific circles ” are those which arose after the
general abandonment of Catholic philosophy by those
who left the Church at the Reformation. These, there
fore, being the only ones they know, are the only systems
scientific men have a right to laugh at, and we may
well grant them that right. Since Descartes and Kant
the so-called modern philosophy has let the
�What is the Good of God?
1
1
our sense-experience, and our deductions therefrom
have no correspondence with reality. There are two
orders, of thought and of thing, but there is no means
of uniting them. On this assumption he undertakes to
investigate our knowledge and intellectual powers ; but
with what instrument ? With his own intellect, of
course, which, according to him, is completely unre
liable. What result can we expect from such an inves
tigation ? Kant tells us that we have certain mind-forms,
a priori cognitions, such as those of space and time, by
which our sense-experience is necessarily modified.
But those “ forms ” have no existence outside the mind,
so that we have no knowledge of things as they are.
How, then, can he expect us to accept his opinions as
true ? Must he not admit that he too is the victim of
illusions, and that he cannot know whether he tells the
truth or not, whether he explains human knowledge
rightly or wrongly ? Kantian Dualism is weighed and
found wanting.
Fichte (1762-1814) went still further, and denied the
reality of sense-perceptions, explaining them as crea
tures of the Ego which alone possesses any reality. So
that the world does not exist outside consciousness.
This is idealistic Monism, and is equally unsatisfactory.
We need not further examine the later philosophy of
Hegel (1770-1831), which is more purely arbitrary than
its predecessors. Everything is an expression of Abso
lute Thought ; we are aH part of God, &c. This is
Pantheistic Idealism. That such philosophical systems
should fall into discredit even in the land of their origin
is not surprising, but rather quite natural. What foun
dations remain if this huge visible world of matter and
force, of light, colour, and sound, is nothing more than
a mere projection of my inward sense, or, if the whole
world of thoughts and ideas is nothing but a phantom
of the “ Ego,” a creation of the mind without any true
objective equivalent ?
The reaction from such spinning of cobwebs has
�22
/F/W
is the Good of God ?
naturally taken amongst unbelievers the form of
Materialism. In this system, which is also monistic,
instead of everything being Mind, everything is Matter.
Comte (1798-1857), the inventor of Positivism, or the
Religion of Humanity,1 was a Materialist, in that he
limited all valid knowledge to sense-perception, for the
senses can only tell us of the existence of matter. The
chief modern exponent of Materialism is Haeckel, who,
while professing to keep within the limits of pure
Science, is as speculative as the veriest Idealist of them
all. If this form of Philosophy is not also derided by
men of Science it is because it masquerades under
another name, and thus conceals its non-scientific
character. We need say no more of it here.
To such depths has modern philosophy sunk. But
it would be a great mistake and a sign of a very limited
knowledge indeed if one confounded these vague and
arbitrary systems with the true, sound, always valuable
“ philosophia perennis ” which was founded by Aris
totle, adopted by Christianity, and marvellously
developed by the Scholastics, especially by St.
Thomas Aquinas, and which even nowadays is in full
harmony with the results of the natural sciences, and
gives us the only consistent explanation of the world.
But it needs the humble repentance of the Prodigal
Son and a “ Pater, peccavi,” to find God, and this the
poor, hungry, and naked so-called modern philosophy
has not got the courage to say.
15. Amid rival theories, Scepticism is the safest
course.
Aflei hearing of all these different opinions and systems
of the philosophers, one is finally driven to the opinion:
Nobody knows anything for certain; one person
denies what another asserts.” Therefore, the only
thing left for the man who has not the time or the
a 11 y for pei sonal investigation, is to remain in an
tht'e^peiaX Gid'
°‘ “S adtarents-t0 “nsisl °f
�What is the Good of God?
23
altitude “ of honest doubt.” Scepticism becomes the
only rational policy.
Scepticism, in its full sense, holding nothing as cer
tain, is not only not rational, but is also not possible.
For as soon as a sceptic makes an assertion, he contra
dicts himself and admits at least something as true.
He either maintains the incertitude of all cognition,
and claims that assertion and the arguments which
support it to be true ; or, he doubts that assertion, in
which case he still holds several things as true ; for
instance—that, true and false are not the same, that
certitude and doubt differ from each other, that one
cannot acquire certitude, that he himself has that
opinion, and that he himself is existing. “ But I doubt
even that.” “ Do you doubt the difference between
true and false ?” “Yes.” “ Why, then, do you contra
dict me ? For it does not matter to you whether it is
so or not ! Do you also doubt the difference between
your opinion and mine ? ” “ Yes.” “ Then you have no
reason whatever to say anything. Moreover, you have
just now asserted two things, and even if you were to
say again, 11 do not know,’ you would at least affirm
your ignorance. In short, if you wish not to contradict
yourself you must never express yourself.”
It is clear, then, that as long as a man uses his reason
at all he cannot doubt everything. By its very con
stitution the mind is bound to admit facts which are
based on evidence, just as a healthy eye must see, if
the necessary conditions are at hand. And there are
a number of truths which are self-evident. Thus he
must admit the fact of his own existence, for if he
doubt it, his doubt supposes it already. The same with
the principle of contradiction, z.e., that the same thing
under the same aspect cannot exist and not exist at
the same time ; for every denial and every doubt pre
supposes the principle. Even in mathematics the first
general and fundamental propositions, that the part is
less than the whole, for example, are taken as self-
�24
What is the Good of God ?
evident. They may be explained but not proved, for
they are self-evident and fundamental truths.
From the existence of unchangeable truths like these,
moreover, the existence of a real primitive truth—that
is, the existence of God—follows as a logical sequence.
Accordingly, although “ doctors disagree” very fre
quently and fundamentally in this modern world, the
business of the learner is to discover some logical
system which makes no arbitrary demands, which
acknowledges the soundness and, at the same time,
the limitations of natural faculty, which gives an answer
to all the puzzles of life, or at least gives reasons why
the answer is not yet possible, which, logically pursued,
does not issue in immorality or inhumanity. There is
only one system that does all that, the system which
is based on the fact of a Personal Creator to whom
the Universe belongs and to whom man is accountable.
APPENDIX
BOOKS AND PAMPHLETS FURTHER DEVELOPING THE
PRECEDING ARGUMENTS
Pamphlets—
The Existence of God, by Mgr. Canon Moyes. Sands, 6d. net.
Science and Faith, by Rev. Dr. Aveling. Sands, 6d. net.
The Church versus Science, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Sands, 6d. net
Modern Free Thought, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Sands, 6d. net. •
Why I Believe tn God, by A. E. Proctor. C T S id
Agnosticism, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. C.T.S. id’’
Modern Science and Ancient Faith, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J.
c. 1 .o., id.
Science and Sczendsfc; Science or Romance?; Evolutionary
Philosophy and Common Sense, by Rev. J. Gerard, S.J. Three
volumes. C.T.S., is. each.
Books—
by Rev- Bernard Boedder, S.J. Longmans,
•, By ,Pre,sident Windle. Sands, 3s. 6d. net.
Se Old
Dr< AvelinS- Sands, 3s. 6d. net.
^ Re^J Ger”ald
<Criticism of Haeckel),
The Reign if Law, by the Duke^rgyU
5 Pap6r’ 6d<
Agnosticism, by Prof. Robert Flint. Blackwood.
printed and pcbushedby THE CATHOLIC truth
SOCIETY, LONDON.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What is the good of God?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Catholic Truth Society
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24 p. ; 19 cm.
Series: Reason Versus Rationalism, no.2
Notes: Includes bibliography (p.24).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Catholic Truth Society
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1522
Subject
The topic of the resource
God-Attributes
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (What is the good of God?), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
God-Proof
Religion and science
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/54cd8af8e0594eaa98c93e38915e3b76.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Lx1GPgNZecdpzCM4acAATVosj60p44I9uhvl6h5vOT98xPi4fM1gvrwekHgZhE2JjrNHHcpPz%7E0QqGSVB8cJEI0cfrT2cg1PG3T0zsjoeiaZtGY%7ExdAtGuQbGhQOO8kiZEghxM-Rd6GaMTHV%7ERshmCckwhKkf2eTFHO93HCvvexZV44l4DXwimuGXOPcHsomGPeItWiK1IATj86bPMbhR1r5Jf6yKeLuJtNuHARxPMIe%7EIg543kCOiK2oG7%7E4UTnqSsIZFiwWHygyKt9RWMkJ5vnVSTETVjII4EH86s-Cq4F%7EMlHFWfrOC8ZGFpOI1TeeuTINJzgXUIsRrJbhPsMpQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
95cfc601431d1df87ee8a03f6667db94
PDF Text
Text
Co-operati
WITH REFERENCES TO THE
EXPERIMENT OF LEGLAIRE.
A LECTURE
Given
at the
Hall
of
Science, Sheffield, Sunday, March i8th, 1883.
BY
EDWARD CARPENTER.
SECOND EDITION.
PRICE ONE
PENNY.
Published at
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON.
1886.
�........... . ''WWxWWWsMWsis^^
BY THE
SAME
AUTHOR.
Towards Democracy. New edition, with numerous
added Poems, crown 8vo, cloth. 260 pp. Price 2s. 6d.
“ A book whose power will certainly make it known.”—
Dublin University Review.
“ Truly ‘ mystic, wonderful ’—like nothing so much as a
nightmare after too earnest a study of the Koran!”—
Graphic.
“ Its plan includes a poetical appeal to the different
nationalities of the world, a sketch of the characteristic
features of England and English towns, and all kinds of
industrial work, finally a series of dramatic pictures whose
vividness and beauty seem magical.”—Cambridge Review.
Modern Science: a Criticism. Crown 8vo, paper, 76
pp. Price is.
Modern Money-Lending ; or, the Meaning of Divi
dends. A Pamphlet. Price 2d. Second edition.
England’s Ipeal. Price 2d.
John Heywood, Deansgate
11,
and Ridgefield, Manchester;
Paternoster Buildings, London.
and
ALSO
Social Progress and Individual Effort.
from To-Day. Price id.
Reprinted
Desirable Mansions : A Tract. Reprinted, with a few
alterations, from Progress, June, 1885. Price id.
THE MODERN PRESS, 13, Paternoster Row, London, E.C.
For popular pamphlets on all political, social, and
economical subjects, apply to The Modern Press, or send
stamped envelope for catalogue.
�CO-OPERATIVE PRODUCTION.
R. CHAIRMAN AND FRIENDS,—The widespread presen
timent of Change which hovers like a cloud over our modern
world—and which makes us feel that our present social and
political forms, our customs, our religions even, are in a state
of Transition, that they are not permanent but are leading forward to
something perhaps more permanent in the future—this presentiment of
Change, Isay, is in nothing.more strongly felt than in the relations of
Capital and Labour. These relations are in the present day so
monstrous, so unnatural, so productive of manifold evil and suffering
that it is felt to be impossible that they should continue; the only question
is—To what new form will they give place ?
At this vast problem what may be called Underground Europe is
working—that Europe which though it is comparatively unrepresented
in our governments, though it is almost unexpressed in our newspapers,
though it is ignored by the higher forms of society, is really the great
undercurrent of our modern life, and the source from which the forms of
the future will spring. Nihilists in Russia, socialists in Germany,
communists in the United States and in France, landleaguers in Ireland,
and in every place those who favour the welfare of the People, are
essentially—however different their modes of work and the ground which
they cover—working at this same problem: the problem, namely, how to
enfranchise Labour, how to give it its just and equal rights in the face
of Capital, and how to bring it face to face and into direct contact with
the Land—the source of all production.
Certainly you will all agree that nothing can be more desperate than
the present evil. Every man who has done honest work knows, that
such work is a pleasure—one of the greatest pleasures in life. If it was
pronounced as a curse upon Adam that “ in the sweat of his brow he
should eat bread,” yet we must conclude that the force of evolution
acting through centuries has adapted man to his environment in that
respect! For there is no doubt now that Labour, under right conditions,
is a blessing and not a curse. In fact, to use your skill and your
strength in producing that which is beneficial to yourself and to others,
to look back afterwards on the work of your own hands, to see that as
far as may be it has been well done, that it will serve its time and the
purpose for which it was intended—these things in themselves cannot
but be a pleasure. When we consider moreover that a large part of
�I
4
L
life must always be given to Labour, it becomes obvious to us that if
such labour might not be pleasurable Life would indeed be a poor thing,,
and the question “ Is life worth living” really worth asking.
But it does not surely require a great effort of imagination to picture
■ to ourselves a state of things in which this idea should be realised. It
does not, I say, require a great effort to picture to ourselves an Island
say—in some far sea—where the inhabitants favoured by a genial soil
and climate are able to produce for themselves all that is necessary for
their subsistence. Blessed with a tolerably contented disposition and
simple tastes these good people find that their wants are few and that
a few hours’ labour a day are amply sufficient to provide them collectively
with all they need. Not being therefore hurried in their work they are
able to do it thoroughly well and to enjoy all the more in consequence
the doing of it. And not being hurried they are able to see to it that
the conditions under which they work are favorable to health, both of
body and soul—that they are neither painful nor degrading. On the
contrary each man as he rises in the morning looks forward with agree
able sentiments to the labour of the day, and a fair amount of neigh
borliness and mutual helpfulness among the inhabitants contribute to
make this Island a pleasant scene of harmonious and peaceful activity.
It does not, I say, require a very exaggerated effort of the imagination
to picture such a state of affairs. Nor have I the least doubt that in its
main outlines it has been realised over and over again in the past, that
it is realised in the present day in many parts of the globe.
Well, Great Britain is an island. It enjoys, whatever its detractors
may say, a fair climate—the best perhaps for open air work in the world
—and a varied and productive soil. Yet glance over this land to-day,
and what a contrast to the picture I have just drawn !
Go into any factory in Sheffield: and what do you see ? I will tell
you. You see depressed gloomy faces, pallid features, stunted sickly
forms—on all sides dirt, and thick polluted air—you see scrambling
hurried work, badly done, deceptively done, you see deception and
jealousy between man and man, you see deception and hatred between
workman and employer. I ask you, is it possible that there can be any
pleasure in work here ? It is impossible. Not long ago I was in a
nailmaker’s shop in Sheffield—they were making horse nails, 2^ inches
long or so. The operation requires some little skill. The nailmaker
takes his rod heated from the fire and hammers it on an anvil, till he
has drawn the end out into a long point; with two or three blows on a
certain part of the anvil he fashions the head, and with a couple more
blows with another instrument he severs the nail from the rod, and
casts it on a heap with others, returning the rod to the fire and taking
out another already heated in its place. You would not perhaps think
a minute too much for this operation. Probably it is not, to perform it
well. But if the nailmaker were to make only one nail a minute he
would not be able to earn sufficient to support himself and family. He
therefore makes one in half a minute. By dint of scrambling through
his work and not being very particular how it is done he finds he can
just manage this. A thousand times a day does this wretched man
hurry through this one operation—and this is the labour of his life, day
after day, week after week, month after month, and year after year. I
ask you, what sort of scramble is this to form the life of a human being ?
What sort of training is this for body and soul ? Whither does it natu
rally tend—but to the beershop ?
�5
. Many of you are familiar with the interior of filecutters’ shops in this
neighbourhood. You know that the file-cutter sits on a high stool,
bending with cramped spine and contracted chest over a bench on
which his file is bedded—in lead. The poisonous lead-dust flies all
about the shop. In his hand he holds a hammer, sometimes 71bs. or
81bs. in weight, with which by repeated blows on a chisel held between
the thumb and fingers of the left hand he cuts the teeth of the file. The
trade is soon learnt; it is not well paid ; women often work at it. To
make a living you must cut from fifty thousand to one hundred and
fifty thousand teeth a day, each with a sharp blow of your hammer.
There is no variety, or change; each blow is like the last. What
wonder if to the evils of a cramped contracted body, and lead poisoning,
are added frequent paralysis of the thumb and wrist of the left hand,
which holds the chisel, and sometimes also I believe of the other arm
and shoulder. And this is the life to which a whole useful section of the
community is condemned, to which it partly condemns itself. Yet there
is nothing necessarily evil in file-cutting. The conditions might be
improved, and the monotony of the work obviated by seeing to it that
each man took part in the other processes of making, tempering and
hardening, or even in some quite different branch of industry.
Let me take another instance. An important branch in carriage
works is the painting. The coachpainters’ shop is large, roomy and well
lighted; in it a number of painters are at work on various carriages.
On entering you are met by a stifling atmosphere laden with the warm
poison-smell of paints and varnishes. You wonder that a man can do
a single day’s work in such a place; you do not wonder that his life is
shortened, and disease rapidly induced by continuance in it. But why
is there no ventilation ? There are plenty of windows—why is there
not one open ? Because if one window were open ever so little, even
only enough to provide air for one man—or if a system of ventilation
were organised (as might easily be done) to supply the whole shop on
the most approved principles—still, even with all care, a little dust—
not much, but a little—would be sure to get in. And for this little dust
many men must be sacrificed. In order that grand people may drive
about in carriages stainless of any speck, other people (not so grand,
but possibly more useful) must spend their lives under conditions which
take all heart and enjoyment out of their labour, and which threaten
them continually with disease and premature death. Mind, there is
no one who thinks more of perfect and stainless work than I do; and I
would be the last to encourage bad and slovenly work. But surely the
cost at which these carriages are painted is rather too great.
Meanwhile the Capitalist—we have spoken of the Laborer—does the
Capitalist have any pleasure in his work, does he encourage good work ?
On the contrary he winks at the bad so long as it sells. That is his
one standard. Nor do I blame him—for he is engaged in a tremendous
battle, a fratricidal battle in which every other consideration must be
sacrificed.
What a curious spectacle is this ! When we organise a military force,
it has a duty to fulfil. Its captains have to lead it against the common
enemy and drive him from our shores. So when a nation organises a
great industrial army, it has a duty to fulfil. What is that ? It has to
win for the nation those products of toil which are necessary for its use;
it has to drive the common enemies of Poverty and Hunger from that
�6
nation’s shores. What should we say if in that other army the captains
instead of allying themselves against the invader, turned their regiments
on each other and engaged in a fierce and fratricidal battle? Yet
this is exactly what our captains of Industry do—using their forces to
hurt and hinder each other in every possible way, and absolutely allying
themselves with Poverty and Hunger as their friends—since it is these
that force the workers to accept lowest wages.
To carry out this warfare, they go to enormous expense—all wasted.
For this, hundreds of thousands of pounds spent in advertisements—all
wasted; for this, the labour of thousands of commercial travellers—all
wasted ; for whatever one firm gains by its advertisements, its travellers,
another firm inevitably loses. For this, rubbishy articles poured out
upon the market, all wasted, cast away almost as soon as bought; for
this, wages rammed down to the lowest pittance which will support life.
It is a fight for life or death that the Capitalist is engaged in, and for
this all honour, all justice and equity, every sentiment of pity, gentleness,
common humanity even, must be sacrificed.
Meanwhile some one makes a great discovery. Some capitalist,
more ingenious and less scrupulous than his fellows, makes the discovery
that he can carry on his firm almost, practically speaking, without
paying any wages. He finds that with the aid of machinery and one
or two experienced workman as overlookers, he can for the rest get on
by employing only boys and girls. These receive a merely nominal
wage for their work. As apprentices (the boys at least) they are sup
posed, in consideration of the low wage, to be taught the trade. But,
as you know in the present day, they are not taught. Instead of being
carried on through all the operations of the trade, a boy is taught one
operation, and kept to that. It is quickly learnt; his work thus is most
remunerative to the employer; his employer, in fact, steals the extra
advantage ; the boy loses it. He grows up; and at the age of 21, when
he should know his trade well, he is an untaught and crippled work
man ; and then—when he should in increased wages be reaping the
fruits of his years of apprenticeship—he is turned away to make room
for another boy in his place!
Delightful, is it not ? The ingenious Grinder of bodies and souls can
now produce an article at less cost than before ; he can undersell other
Capitalists; and they, willing or not, are forced to adopt the same
treacherous and wicked practices as he. Such is the result of our
present wretched system of Production which, as far as I can see,
leaves no choice to humane and just-minded Capitalists (of whom there
are many) but to level them down to the standard of the most unscru
pulous and degraded among their body.
What a spectacle does all this present ? Half-taught boys and girls
doing half the work of the country—scrambling through it amid dirt and
ill-health; vast mud-floods of rubbish poured out over the land,
adulteration and deception in everything; capitalists flying at each
others throats, intent only to maim and slay; shareholders screaming
for dividends, regardless how they are got; able-bodied men and women
on tramp up and down the country, unable to obtain employment—
complaints of insufficient work in every direction—and all the while
the LAND—the source of all production—staring them in the face,
half-cultivated, undrained, uncared for, reverting to ruin and to
waste !
�7
From this iniserable picture let us turn to something more hopefuL
That such a state of things should continue is impossible. It is suffi
cient to say that it must not and it shall not be.
Underground Europe, as I have said, is working at this vast problem
—has been working at it for some time. There have been many trials
already,-for the establishment of a better system, many failures, many
successes too. But we must not expect so great a matter to be worked
out all at once. The revolution of the Industrial organisation of
Society may perhaps take centuries to complete itself. When Nature
creates a new species among the animals it appears that she throws out
thousands of tentative forms before one arises that is fitted to survive
and supplant the old; and so when it is a question of a new form of
Society shall we not expect that there shall be many tentatives, many
failures, a long period of evolution, before the forms (be they one or
many) of the future are finally produced and established ?
It is not my purpose, however, in the present lecture, to present you
with anything like a history of men’s efforts, so far, in this direction.
One of the first steps towards the organisation of Industry is Co
operation ; and I desire now, out of many, successful experiments in
Co-operation, to single out just one—one that has been talked about a
good deal lately—that namely of Leclaire—as an example for our
encouragement and instruction, and to show (what cannot now be
doubted) that success in this direction is abundantly possible.
*
Leclaire was born—of poor parentage—in the year 1801, in Central
France. His father was a shoemaker, but Leclaire did not learn the
trade. He received but a poor education, and to the end of his life was
not a good scholar. At the age of 17 he left home to try his fortune in
Paris, and there after a time became apprenticed to a house painter.
He got on well, saved a little money, married when he was 22, and at
the age of 26 was able to set up in business for himself.
He struck out boldly from the first. Leclaire had a “ royal ” mind—
straight and true. From the first he went on the principle of good
wages and good work. He determined that all the work connected with
his firm should be thoroughly well done, and to arrive at this he saw it
was necessary to employ good workmen well paid. He did so, and the
result justified his expectations. He became known and sought out.
The Government officials employed him, and by the year 1835 he had
realised a neat little fortune.
It was then that he actually (is it not surprising ?) set himself to solve
the problem of Co-operation. Finding that he had amply sufficient for
his own wants and those of his small household (for he had no children)
he actually, instead of spending the rest of his life in the accumulation
of more (to him) useless money, set about trying to better the condition
of the men connected with his firm. And I must say it surprises me to
think that out of the hundreds and thousands of capitalists who at one
time or another have been similarly situated to Leclaire, there have
been so few—so very few—to whom it has occurred to follow a similar
course. Let us however do all honour to his noble wife who instead of
drawing him back, as so many would have done, with all manner of
* Not that, as I think, isolated co-operative ventures can be durable in a society
whose very atmosphere is Competition. Unless the network of such enterprise extends
till it covers practically the whole nation, co-operation will be in great danger of
dying out again.
�petty and domestic doubts, urged him generously forward, and was to
the end his trusted and helpful counsellor in his great enterprise.
The form in which the problem presented itself to him is expressed in
the following paragraph.
*
“ ‘ I asked myself,’ said Leclaire, ‘could a
workman in our business by putting more heart into his work produce
in the same lapse of time—i.e. a day—a surplus of work equivalent to
the value of an hour’s pay,
6d. ? Could he, besides, save 2^d. a
day by avoiding all waste of materials entrusted to him, and by taking
greater care of his tools ?’ Every one would answer he could. Well
then, if a single workman could arrive at the result of realising for the
benefit of the concern an additional 8^d. a day, in 300 working days
that would amount to a gain of £to 4s. 2d. per man, or upwards of
^3,000 a year in a business like Leclaire’s, which at that time employed
300 men on the average. Here would be a handsome profit to be
shared with his men, and gained as it were out of nothing.’ ”f
In 1838 then Leclaire took his first step in this direction by estab
lishing what he called a Mutual Help Association. This was practically
a benefit club (with a subscription of is. 8d. a month) which provided
not only medical attendance but reading rooms and educational facilities,
and ultimately became in its corporate capacity a partner in the firm.
In 1840 Leclaire held a meeting of workmen interested in the subject,
to discuss certain plans of Co-operation, and in 1842 another meeting
was organized for carrying these into practice; but this latter was
vetoed by the Police, who thought they scented Socialism somewhat
strongly 1 Leclaire however, who saw it was necessary above all things
to convince his workmen that his scheme was practical, took a bag of
gold one day containing ^475 and divided it among a number, 44, of his
workmen who were in favour of his plans. In the next year, 1843,
calculating again on the basis of his profits for the year, he divided
/490 among 44 men. The effect was irresistible. In 1844 there was
^788 to divide amongst 82, and from that time forward large bonuses
were every year divided, the average value of these during the last
decade, 1870-80, having been as much as 15 per cent on the total wages
earned.
It was about the year 1842 that Leclaire also published some pam
phlets on the Tricks of the Trade. Having determined that all the work of
his firm should be thoroughly good and honest, and seeing that in that
case it would have to compete at a disadvantage with much dishonest
and superficial work commonly done, he set himself about to expose
some of the false practices current in his trade (as they are current in
every trade) yet which were then unknown to the general public. Was
* Quoted from Mr. W. H. Hall’s pamphlet on Leclaire, published by the Centra
Co-operative Board, Manchester.
t “The 500 employes of a Newark (New Jersey) firm which does a large business in
the manufacture of fertilizers were pleasantly surprised the other day by the distribution
among them of sums of money, ranging from 1,000 dollars for the three most responsible
to 7 dollars for the lowest grade of labourers. The money represented a certain per
centage of the earnings during 1882, which the firm decided a year ago to divide
among their hands annually thereafter, according to the skill and value of their labour.
Alfred and Edwin Lister, who compose this firm, are canny Scotchman, and they adopt
this system from motives of business quite as much as from philanthropic impulses,
believing that their employes will do enough better work to make up for the sum
required if they know that they are virtually sharers in the profits of the manufacture.
The only wonder is that more of our shrewd business men do not appreciate the wisdom
of such a policy.”—Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper, Feb. 3rd., 1883. New York.
�9
ever such a thing done before by a man engaged in business ? Imagine
the sensation it produced, and the indignation of his competitors in the
same trade—who attacked him in return with all manner of calumnious
accusations, and doubtless were the cause of police interference with
his plans !
There was another point to which Leclaire turned his attention, and
which must not be passed over. He saw with grief the exceedingly
injurious effect which the white of lead used in painting had upon his
workmen. He could not rest till he had investigated the subject.
With the aid of a chemist he went into it thoroughly, and the result
was the discovery of a similar preparation, the white of zinc, which is
perfectly innocuous, and which Leclaire substituted for the other
thenceforward throughout his firm. Now I think I hear some one
saying, “ Ah, but the white of zinc is not so good, is not so durable, as
the white of lead ! ” Well, that is just the point that I want to face.
I do not know enough of the subject to have any opinion of my own.
Perhaps someone here can supply some practical information. But let
us suppose that the white of zinc is not so durable, let us suppose
*
that with this preparation a house has to be painted, say, once in four
years, to once in five the other way, still the question in my mind is
whether for the sake of this gain we have any right to sacrifice a whole
useful class of the community, to shorten their lives and to render their
daily work penal and repulsive to them. Or, rather, there is no question
about it in my mind. Nor does there seem to have been any question
in Leclaire’s, for he banished the poisonous material; and it is reported,
I am glad to say, that in Paris the white of zinc is now used in 75 per
cent, of house painting jobs.
Thus for many years Leclaire kept on working at and elaborating his
scheme of Co-operation. He granted large subventions to the Mutual
Help Association, and in i860 made its capital up to ^4,000. This was
equivalent to making the men, corporately, shareholders in the business ;
for the Mutual Help Association received 5 per cent, on its capital
invested in the concern. Of the remaining annual profits, 20 per cent,
went to the Mutual Help Association, 30 per cent, was divided indi
vidually among the men, and 50 per cent, went to Leclaire and the
other partners.In 1865 Leclaire sustained a great blow in the death of his wife.
Weary of the turmoil of the great city he retired for repose to the
village of Herblay, a few miles west of Paris. But he was not destined
to rest long. He was made Mayor, and becoming interested in
philanthropic schemes in his new neighbourhood—amongst which was
one of agricultural co-operation—he worked harder than ever.
His object now with regard to the Paris business was to teach the
firm to go on of itself, without his supervision ; and, in fact, in 1869,
he retired—all but in name.
In this year the final organisation was drawn up, and deeds of
incorporation were signed. Printed lists of questions had been sent
round to all the workmen, the two hundred answers that had been sent
* As a matter of fact the contrary seems to be the case. For Mr. Sedley Taylor, in
his article on Leclaire in the Nineteenth Century, for September, 1880, writes as follows .
—‘‘I am assured by M. Marquot that the white of zinc, now exclusively used by the
house, is not only perfectly innocuous to the painters, but that work executed with it is
both fresher and more durable than that done with the old deleterious ingredient.”
�IO
up had been analysed and reported on, and the final scheme was
approved at a general meeting.
It was as follows.
The kernel of the constitution was a
body of workmen (it numbered 122 in 1880) chosen by their fellows,
on account of their superior character, education and skill, to
be the governing body of the concern. It was called the noyau, and
candidates for admission to it had to be between the ages of 25 and 40
at the time of election. The advantages of belonging to this body were
higher pay, and prior claim to employment in slack times ; the duties
consisted in the election of foremen and of the general managers, and in
the trial (by a committee) of all cases of misconduct. The noyau was
thus, it will be seen, the supreme power in the firm—whose constitu
tion was (and is) therefore thoroughly democratic. Yet it is most im
portant to observe that the two managing partners once elected were
unfettered in the business work actually committed to them—a most
wise arrangement, without which the democratic tendencies would pro
bably have brought about their own ruin.
The Capital was at this time fixed at ^16,000; of which Leclaire
owned ^4,000, M. Defourneaux, the acting manager, ^4,000, and the
M. H. A. ^8,000. There was a first charge on the whole profits of 10
per cent, for a reserve fund, and 5 per cent, for interest on Capital ; of
the remainder, 25 per cent, was to go to the acting manager, 50 per
cent, to the officials and workmen individually, and 25 per cent, to the
Mutual Help Association.
For the rest I will finish these few words about Leclaire’s experi
ment by a quotation from Mr. Hall’s excellent pamphlet—to which I
am so largely indebted.
"Id July, 1872, the day before his death, Leclaire wrote to M. Defourneaux, ‘All
who have grown old with me have been more or less martyrs to me, but you espec
ially have had most to suffer from my exactions in respect of the changes and modifi
cations I found it necessary to introduce into the management of the business. There
fore, for you I shall entertain feelings of the liveliest gratitude all my life, and beyond
the grave, if possible. I beseech you take care of yourself, and think of those who will
still long have great need of you. Until sound learning shall have replaced ignorance
amongst the masses, until the disinherited shall have strength to raise themselves to us,
we must hold out a hand to them. Otherwise the rooted antagonism between the
suffering classes and the more fortunate will never cease.”
" On July 13, 1872, Leclaire passed away, having enjoyed the rare felicity of seeing
the dreams of his youth realised in his old age. He left a private fortune of ^48,000,
an inconsiderable amount to what he might have left had money, instead of menmaking, been his object in life...................
" For some years before his death, Leclaire was permitted the gratification of seeing
not a few of the pensioners of the firm in the enjoyment of the retiring income of i,ooof.,
or ^40, which enabled some of them to end their days, like himself, in a country retreat.
“ His business in no way suffered by his death, as it had been the preoccupation of
his declining years to provide that it should not. On the contrary, it went on steadily
increasing. In the year 1877, five years after Leclaire’s death, as many as 984 work
men shared in the profits, of whom 450 on an average were at work at one time. In
that year a trifle under ^40,000 was paid in wages. Altogether, since 1842, /8o,ooo
has been divided as the men’s share of the profits. On September 1, 1877, the capital
of the firm had increased to /4O,394, and the business done in that year to /8o,ooo.
In 1868 the Mutual Aid Society possessed a capital of /i 3,000, ^8,000 of which was
invested in the firm. Its capital has since considerably increased, and in 1877 it had
depending on it twenty-four pensioners, receiving a yearly pension of /40 each, and
eleven widows, pensions of /20.
“The principle of the election of the managing partners by the general assembly of
the noyau is found to work admirably.
“ In 1872, M. Redouly was unanimously chosen to succeed Leclaire, and in 1875 M.
Marquot, with a single dissentient voice, was elected in the place of M. Defourneaux,
who unhappily followed Leclaire to the grave within three years.
�II
“ From his death-bed, Leclaire sent this last message to his men, ‘ that he exhorts
them to remember constantly that in working for the business, they not only work to
improve their own condition, but that they set a noble example, and that this reflection
ought to be an incessant encouragement to them to do their duty thoroughly, since by
so doing they contribute to the enfranchisement of those who have nothing but their
labour to live by.’ "
In conclusion, let me say a few words by way of moral. I
have taken just this one instance of Co-operation out of many
that I might have taken. I might have taken other instances
where the thing has been started and carried on from the capi
talist side, so to speak; and I might have taken instances where
the workmen have joined together and with little or no Capital
to begin with have yet succeeded in founding prosperous and even
wealthy corporations. But I thought it would be better in the present
lecture to keep to one example ; and the example of Leclaire has the
advantage of having been lately brought before the public more than
once, and of affording some good lessons.
In the first place I would say to you, Do not be discouraged in this
matter by the finger of scorn. Remember that Leclaire took 30 years
to work out his experiment, and that every good thing is of slow
growth ; and do not be discouraged if now and then your enemies can
point to a case in which Co-operative production has failed. In France,
I believe I may say, there are at least a hundred successful Co-opera
tive firms at the present moment; but on this side of the Channel we
seem to be slower in taking the matter up. New ideas always make
slow work amongst us; we are suspicious of them. Then we English
are very independent; we like each to go our own way, and are not
ready to join with others in any movement; and this individualism—•
though a valuable quality in its way—hinders united action. Another
thing against us is that the Press—being almost entirely in the hands
of the Capitalist class, and representing the views and feelings of that
class—has consistently, and for many years done everything in its
power to throw cold water on the co-operative movement and to
represent it as of no importance. Still, these are only obstacles,
which have to be overcome, and which perhaps when overcome will
render the interests of labour in this country all the more solid and
united. All we have got to do is to determine that they shall be over
come—and then they will be. For the present let us consider what
lessons are to be drawn from the case we have before us.
The first principle which underlies Leclaire’s work seems to me
plainly to lie in that passage which I quoted from Mr. Hall’s pamphlet,
in which Leclaire asks himself whether men working under a system
of mutual help and confidence would produce more than they would
under a system of mutual division and jealousy. The question answers
itself in asking. Mutual helpfulness and trust underlie our human life ;
they are planted deep in the human breast ; if we would help on Co
operation one of the first things (perhaps the first thing) we should do
is to help to spread abroad these principles of life. Let no man call
this a merely sentimental matter. If these things are sentiments they
are the sentiments which create society. The wonderful monuments
of civilization,—great nations, cities, telegraphs, railroads, the huge
machinery of commerce—are but so many expressions of that which is
eternal here—in the human breast—the desire and the need of man
for dependence on his fellow man; and the cry for Co-operation to-day
�12
is only another effort forwards in the long line which man has travelled
since first he came to be a social animal. Remember always and
always that these desires and needs, though hidden, are really, far more
than laws and governments, the agents which construct and create our
social life as it is; and neither be ashamed to confess them nor be
inclined to pass them over as of little importance because they are not
tangible or measurable.
The second principle which underlay Leclaire’s work is illustrated by
the pamphlet he wrote on the ‘ tricks of the trade.’ It is the principle
of honest work. Leclaire had to compete with bad ; but he was farseeing enough to be sure that if his labours were to be of permanent
value, they must be founded on good work. He was determined that they
should be so. The result proved that he was right. And we may be
sure that if a new industrial system is to supplant the wretched chaos
(it cannot be called a system) of to-day, it must be founded on the prin
ciple of good work, and on no other. It is impossible that a system
founded on dishonest and bad work can succeed. Yet so corrupted
are our modes of thought in the present day that this idea is unfamiliar
to most people, and it is generally supposed that the badness or good
ness of work is merely a question (like everything else) of Supply and
|f
Demand—to be dismissed as soon as those deities are satisfied.
Let me, on this point, borrow a word from Mr. Ruskin. He says
(that every class of the community has a duty to fulfil towards the
community at large. The soldier for instance has a duty—it is to
defend his country. The schoolmaster has a duty—it is to teach the
young. Both these parties receive due payment for their services, but
that fact does not modify the nature of the work they are bound to fulfil.
The merchant (and with him the tradesman and artizan) has a duty to
fulfil. What is it ? It is to supply the nation with good things in the
way of material produce—with goods, not with evils. What should we
think of the schoolmaster who taught lies to his children, or of the
soldier who ran away in the time of the nation’s danger—and what do
we think of the merchant who allows himself to supply the community
with bad, dishonest and useless articles ?
It is no good. Until the industrial classes of this country shall have
got back to the notion that they have a duty to the community at large
—which they are bound to fulfil, at times even at the cost of personal
loss—it is impossible that any good thing can come from them, it is
impossible that any saving and redeeming faith can spread amongst
them. No sophistry of Political Economy, no babble about Supply
and Demand, can ever get over this point, or make what is essentially
a lie into a fair and reasonable thing. Nor can any industrial organisa
tion of the future find a permanent foundation in any principle other
than that of good and honest work.
There is another point. I have said that no man can enjoy doing bad
work. If we are to make work an enjoyable thing in the future we must
(if for that reason alone) see to it that our work is good and thorough.
And if, for a time, such work should bring a less return, a less material
advantage, in consequence, still I maintain it would bring us more real
advantage, more enjoyment and content, than the money we so lose.
The third principle which, to my mind, emerges from a study of
Leclaire’s work lies in that affair about the white of zinc. It is the
question of men versus commodities. There is such a rage for cheap
�13
commodities in the present day—and a superficial view of Political
Economy has so fostered it—that it seems to be the prevalent idea that
the main glory and advancement of a nation is to get its commodities,
its crops, plentiful and cheap. Wherein it is forgotten that there is one
commodity, one crop, which in importance entirely surpasses all the
others, and on account of which only, in fact, the others are of value—
I mean the crop of men and women over a country. Leclaire struck
at the root of this matter. He said the community had no right to
sacrifice its producers, their health and well-being, for the sake of the
mere cheapness of the article produced. And any one who looks calmly
at the matter must agree with him.
But steam with its marvellous and unprecedented power of production has for the time made us maniacs on this subject. We are deluged
with commodities. “ Cheap and nasty and plenty of them ” is our motto.
What if the kettle bottom comes out shortly after we have bought it.
“ Oh ! but it is so cheap, what can you expect ? ” Chairs give way when
we sit upon them, shirts wear out, our houses tumble about our ears.
“ Oh ! but they are so cheap—we can soon get new ones ! ”
So we can, and so we do. Buying to-day and throwing away
to-morrow we go on till our houses are choked with useless lumber,
and our towns are laid upon a foundation of old boots and salmon tins 1
And there sitting on the top of this our rubbish heap of civilisation we
congratulate ourselves, crowing to the other nations, and sending forth
our missionaries and our soldiers to improve into our likeness the very
savages who have more dignity than us.
Meanwhile shall we not rather ask, before we congratulate ourselves
so freely, at what cost to the souls and bodies of men have these cheap
goods been won ? When we buy a file for the price of an old song, and
six boxes of matches for a penny, shall we not first, before we glorify
their cheapness, enquire how it is they are so cheap ? And if we find
that to produce this result men and women have been pinned down in
squalor and wretchedness till the divine image in them has been blurred
almost past recognition, if for this backs have been bowed and eyes
grown dim, and all belief in human or divine goodness has gradually
faded away—shall we not rather be ashamed to have bought things at
such a price ? Shall we not rather turn and cleanse first this Augaean
dung-heap of our own iniquities, before we dare to improve others, or
presume for a moment to think ourselves worthy of imitation ?
At the bottom of this whole matter, as I think, lies (what lies at the
bottom of so many things) the question of Ideals. If we look into our
own minds we shall, I think, generally find that there in the depths,
consciously or not, lurks some figure : some personage or character that
we have met, heard of, read of; whom we admire, envy, or desire to be
like. This is our ideal. It shapes, for the time being, our actions, our
lives.
At the root of a nation’s life, similarly, there lurks an ideal, which
does perhaps more than anything else to shape its growth. What has
been England’s Ideal for the last 20 or 30 years ? Shall I tell you ? It
can be said in two words. To get on. What does to get on mean ? It
means if you live in a cottage to get on to live in a house with a bay
window ; if you live in a house with a bay window to get on to live in
one with a drawing-room and dining-room ; if you live in a house with
a. drawing-room and dining-room, to add a coach-house and stables;
1
�J4
11 .
|/
finally perhaps to land yourself in solitary grandeur in the midst of a
large park. Now I have nothing to say against this ideal—if it amuses
or pleases any one to take these successive steps I have no objection to
offer, and it would be the merest impertinence in me to do so—provided
that in following out this plan of life you do not trample on the heads
of other people. But if you do so, if in order to mount to your
grand station in life it is necessary to kick some one else into the ditch,
then I say simply that we shall have to stop your little game.
There was a time doubtless when this ideal of material rank and
grandeur was rightful and in place. In the old Feudal society, which
depended so much for its stability on gradations of class and caste, it
was perhaps necessary that this kind of worship of class-position should
exist. And in that time it was practically impossible for a person to
pass over from one class to another—so that the feeling did not disturb
the relations of classes, but rather gave those relations intensity. But
in the present day the invention of steam and the vast development of
mercantile movement and machinery have entirely broken down these
old class barriers—they have let loose the demon of worldly advance
ment—and the consequence is that the last 20 or 30 years in England
have witnessed a spectacle—than which if you were to go all round the
savage nations of the world I doubt if you could witness anything more
degrading and disgusting— the spectacle of a whole nation (or nearly
all of it) occupied in scrambling insanely up into high places of display
and lucre over the tops of each other’s heads! It is in fact the break
down, it is nothing more or less than the decay and putrefaction of
Feudalism ; it is a process inevitable, and the stench and mephitic
vapour that arise from it are I suppose no more than natural; but it is
a process which, one must hope, will not last long—will soon give place
to something more hopeful and organic.
And in truth here and there, it seems to me, there are signs (like
grass in spring) of a new life, a new ideal, arising out of the ground: an
ideal which, as I think, is destined to be the central life of a new age of
the world, and to inspire for centuries new forms of society at least as
permanent fruitful and important as those old forms of Feudalism
which are now passing away.
What is this new Ideal ? It differs from the old one in this—its aim
is not human grandeur, but human equality ; it does not consist in seeking
to be above others, but to be with and of them. This Ideal does not
require for its satisfaction that a man should occupy a grand position in
the world, that he should be the centre of many eyes, or that he should
have acquired wealth, power, learning even ; on the contrary, it looks
for its material, and finds it, in just the ordinary surroundings of
human life. It sees in ordinary men and women, toiling, suffering,
enjoying, the materials of heroes and heroines equal to all in history ; it
sees in some old woman sitting by her cottage door the equal of all the
kings and queens that have ever lived ; it beholds the ever sacred face
of our common humanity looking forth from the troubled and wandering
eyes of the crazy and insane. This Ideal is not one which from the
nature of the case can only be realised by the few; it does not turn a
high light on just one small class or section and condemn the common
crowd to obscurity and contempt. On the contrary it takes the life of
the masses—the ordinary human life as in its main outlines it has been
and seems likely to be—and proclaims that this is in effect as worthy,
1
�J5
as great and dignified, as any form of life can be; perhaps after all best
of all. It says—This ordinary life is essentially grand, delightful and
enjoyable, and it shall be made actually so. We are going henceforth
to make the common occupations honorable and enviable. We will
have it so that the gardening, baking, carpentering, file-cutting, nail
making shall be a pleasure and an honour to work at. We will insist
that the conditions under which all these trades are carried on are
compatible with justice, health and self-respect. We will show in our
selves that the simplest life is as good as any, that we are not ashamed
of it—and we will so adorn it that the rich and idle shall enviously
leave their sofas and saloons and come and join hands with us in it. ,
This is the drift of the new Ideal that 1 think I see springing up
around us. We cannot all be Leclaires, but we can all, I believe, help
forward the true cause of Co-operation (which in its essence is no other
than the emancipation and redemption of Labour) by nourishing and
cherishing this Ideal within us. There is many a hero to-day in the
work-shop who despite the jeers of his fellow-workmen and the solicit
ations of his employer still does honest and good work, because his soul
abhors the bad. There is many an heroic mother in her cottage home
who by gentleness and persuasion, courage and self-respect, casts a
grace and brightness over the meanest of her occupations, and converts
her little household into a Paradise. I ask you above all things to be
practical—not merely to talk about schemes, but to act out in daily life
these principles which underlie and precede the ripening of schemes ;
above all to have done, in thought, word or deed, with this ancient
sham of fleeing from manual labour, of despising or pretending to
despise it. If you thus create the raw material of Co-operation you
need not doubt I think but what the finished product—which you so
desire—will swiftly appear among you.
I
�Socialism made Plain.
The social and political
manifesto of the Social-Democratic Federation issued in June 1883,
with proposals for organisation of labour issued in November 1883.
Fifty-first thousand. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price id.
“ JUSTICE,” the Organ of the Social Democracy. Every
Saturday, one penny.
Summary of the Principles of Socialism.
By
H. M. Hyndman and William Morris. Second edition, 64-pp.
crown 8-vo., in wrapper designed by Wm. Morris, price 4d.
This gives an account of the growth of capitalist production, and concludes with a
statement of the demands of English Socialists for the immediate future.
The Socialist Catechism. By J. L. Joynes. Reprinted
with additions from Justice. Demy 8-vo., price id. Tenth thousand.
Socialist Rhymes
from Justice.
By J. L. Joynes.
Reprinted chiefly
Demy 8-vo., price id.
Wage-Labour and Capital. By Karl Marx.
lated by J. L. Joynes and reprinted from Justice.
Trans
Price 2d.
This is the only work of the great Socialist thinker which has been translated into
English
Socialism and the Worker.
By F. A.
Price id.
Sorge.
An explanation in the simplest language of tne main idea of Socialism.
Socialism and Slavery. By H. M. Hyndman.
(In
reply Mr. Herbert Spencer’s article on the “ The Coming Slavery ”)
Crown 8-vo., in wrapper, price 6d.
Herbert Spencer on Socialism. By Frank Fairman.
16-pp. crown 8-vo., price id.
The Working Man’s Programme (Arbeiter Programm). By Ferdinand Lassalle. Translated from the German
by Edward Peters. Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 6d.
The Robbery of the Poor.
By W. H. P. Campbell.
Demy 8-vo., paper cover, price is.
If
The Future of Marriage- By a Respectable Woman.
Crown 8-vo., paper cover, price 4d.
Socialism versus Smithism: An open letter from
Hi
k
H. M. Hyndman to Samuel Smith, M.P. for Liverpool.
8-vo. paper cover, price 2d.
The Appeal to the Young.
I
IF
Crown
By Prince Peter
Kropotkin. Translated from the French by H. M. Hyndman and
reprinted from Justice. Royal 8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny.
The most eloquent and noble appeal to the generous emotions ever penned by a
scientific man. Its author has just suffered five years imprisonment at the hands of the
French Republic for advocating the cause of the workers
Opening Address to the Trade Union Congress
at Southport, September, 1885. Delivered by T. R. Threlfall. Royal
8-vo., 16-pp. Price one penny.
An able address from a representative working man on political and social topics.
�
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
Co-operative production with references to the experiment of Leclaire: a lecture given at the Hall of Science, Sheffield, Sunday, March 18th, 1883
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: Other works by the same author listed on title page verso. Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Carpenter, Edward [1844-1929]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Modern Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4974
Subject
The topic of the resource
Co-operative Movement
Socialism
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 (Co-operative production with references to the experiment of Leclaire: a lecture given at the Hall of Science, Sheffield, Sunday, March 18th, 1883), 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
Co-operative Movement
Socialism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2b66309a40a1506876f841feac99d58d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=lpndkeZly6vSBHOqW-rI2qAJDFepl56YWtG9KrKZgMxfK2PkOUUVrLDwzNIgtzpqNRxnL9qcYhqfcTjcz-ixea3DkC-P9fHhx3T2MPGkiE3EdUUkDO9En4fUTyZXtvLPe4sLso%7En5HICcKGHJlfrfc%7EzXuteyo0S9ybc%7EgGlzui1Lb4vfBJIhYJ7YiZjp5X1oUwHedquMVQpfagwQTL3YjWbkWDXDx4eBJxSiLwMMG5-DUQeuaHgPQLqOCOojmi6EaUhytt3MfGkTlYrrsHIwB0zkL7VG8pDJUBhaEiyjQhB4ArZygX0Gzo24NrUtW4-UrL-ROnJSAAq%7Ekzm3-z9lw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ea2d249ad7dd93dff5ff178572644e60
PDF Text
Text
167
¿2.
'•* r " . . ziOY-
A?'.' f? - 4
'f
c-fc
s."..:
Jn J^ove’s
an
, 0
^TERNITY
By Arthur W. E. O’Shaughnessy.
My body was part of the sun and the dew,
Not a trace of my death to me clave;
There was scarce a man left on the earth whom I knew,
And another was laid in my grave ;—
I was changed and in heaven; the great sea of blue
Had long washed my soul pure in its wave.
My sorrow was turned to a beautiful dress;
Very fair for my weeping was I,
Arid my heart was renewed, but it bore, none the less,
The great wound that had brought me to die—
The deep wound that She gave who wrought all my distress
Ah, my heart loved her still in the sky !
I wandered alone where the stars’ tracks were bright;
I was beauteous and holy and sad;
I was thinking of her who of old had the might
To have blest me and made my death glad;
I remembered how faithless she was, and how light,
Yea, and how little pity she had.
The love that I bore her was now more sublime,
It could, never be shared now or known ;
And her wound in my heart was a pledge in love’s clime,
Eor her sake I was ever alone,
Till the spirit of God in the fulness of time
Should make perfect all love in his own.
My soul had forgiven each separate tear
She had bitterly wrung from my eyes ;
But I thought of her lightness—ah, sore was my fear
She would fall somewhere never to rise,
And that no one would love her to bring her soul near
To the heaven where love never dies.
�168
IN love’s eternity.
She had drawn me with feigning, and held me a day;
She had taken the passionate price
That my heart gave for love—with no doubt or delay—
For I thought that her smile would suffice ;
She had played with, and wasted, and then cast away
The true heart that could never love twice.
And false must she be; she had followed the cheat
That ends loveless and hopeless below ;
I remembered her words’ cruel worldly deceit
When she bade me forget her and go.
She could ne’er have believed after death we might meet,
Or she would not have let me die so !
I thought and was sad ; the blue fathomless seas
Bore the white clouds in luminous throng,
And the souls that had love were in each one of these ;
They passed by with a great upward song :
They were going to wander beneath the fair trees
In high Eden—their joy would be long.
An age it is since : the great passionate bloom
Of eternity burns more intense ;
The whole heaven draws near to its beautiful doom
With a deeper, a holier sense ;
It feels ready to fall on His bosom in whom
Is each love and each love’s recompense.
How sweet to look back to that desolate space
When the heaven scarce my heaven seemed !
She came suddenly, swiftly, a great healing grace
Filled her features and forth from her streamed !
With a cry our lips met, and a long close embrace
Made the past like a thing I had dreamed.
‘ Ah, love,’ she began, ‘ when I found you were dead
I was changed and the world was changed too ;
On a sudden I felt that the sunshine had fled,
And the flowers and summer gone too ;
Life but mocked me ; I found there was nothing instead
But to turn back and weep all in you.
When you were not there to fall down at my feet,
And pour out the whole passionate store
Of the heart that was made to make my heart complete,
In true words that my memory bore,
Then I found that those words were the only words sweet,
And I knew I should hear them no more.
*
�in love’s eternity.
‘ I found that my life was grown empty again ;
Day and year now I had but to learn
How my heaven had come to me—sought me in vain,
And was gone from me ne’er to return :
Too earthly and winterly now seemed the plain
Of dull life where the heart ceased to burn !
‘ And soon with a gathering halo was seen,
O’er a dim waste that fell into night,
Your coming, your going—as though it had been
The fair track of an angel of light;
And my dream showed you changed in a spirit’s full sheen
Fleeing from me in far lonely flight.
‘ My Angel! ’twas then with a soul’s perfect stake '
You came wooing me, day after day,
With soft eyes that shed tears for my sake and the sake
Of intense thoughts your lips would not say ;
’Twas a love, then, like this my heart cared not to take !
’Twas a heart like this I cast away !
‘ Ah yes !—but your love was a fair magic toy
That you gave to a child who scarce deigned
To receive it—forsook it for some passing joy,
Never guessing the charm it contained :
But you gave it and left it, and none could destroy
The fair talisman where it remained.
‘And, surely, no child—but a woman at last
Found your gift where the child let it lie,
Understood the whole secret it held, sweet and vast,
The fair treasure a world could not buy;
And believed not the meaning could ever have past,
Any more than the giver could die.
‘ And then did that woman’s whole life, with a start,
Own its lover, its saviour, its lord ;
He had come, he had wooed her,—and lo, her dull heart
Had not hailed him with one stricken chord
Of whole passion—had suffered him e’en to depart
Without hope of a lover’s reward !
‘ But, surely, there failed not at length his least look,
His least pleading, his most secret tear
Quite to win her and save her; her heart truly took
A fond record of all: very dear,
Very gracious he seemed; and for him she forsook
The drear ruin her soul had come near.
169
�170
IN love’s ETERNITY.
‘ For him she made perfect her life, till she laved
Her soul pure in the infinite blue :
O thou Lover, who once, for a love deathless ci'aved
A brief heaven of years frail and few,
Take the child whom you loved and the woman you saved
In the Angel who now blesses you ! ’
She ceased. To my soul’s deepest sources the sense
Of her words with a full healing crept,
And my heart was delivered with rapture intense
From the wound and the void it had kept;
Then I saw that her heart was a heaven—immense
As my love ! And together we wept.
�
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
In love's eternity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
O'Shaughnessy, Arthur William Edgar
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 167-170 p. ; 23 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From The Dark Blue 2. Attribution of journal title and date: Virginia Clark catalogue. The Dark Blue was a London-based literary magazine published monthly from 1871 to 1873.
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
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5316
Subject
The topic of the resource
Poetry
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 (In love's eternity), 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
English Poetry
Poetry in English
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/aefb0f72c909279fd412a80644b2af57.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=OgktI%7E7UyatZL-h7yd4HN-x27iofN3quRpZDzGI-ej1%7EZNbPpFobvQ86m0RHUF1xw9WYRR5GdFpkeEz8TdRD0x7IUSfgwG5CVbWPYuQrWpahQDdRjQEnsMVcjhnIOPQz0ptbzlFPyg7AOUbQjkqsgA0-kSYXrEe5M3KK3MxWrImeb2QzIT1kkLm5qo41cSAzgJlivTZqie3nkpzeHP0ivokRBnG6vFfRVSOfPOdfdjNCetqxcVz%7E3yp%7ENEuBhsVdPvGvXYJt10urAbIjJurvgLT6tLqrAJei4lYWqt5NxBZlcr9Y6J9WC-oP9qlklkND9LwfhFBszhW8MR2QmqJ8DQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
e677558a29b7d05d8427b89d1687b0a8
PDF Text
Text
24
Symmetry in Space.
Mar.]
T.WI
SYMMETRY IN SPACE.
The universe, actual, possible and impossible, is composed of
four elements, spirit, matter, space, and time, which are by no
alchemy transmutable into each other. Many alchemists continue,
even in this closing half of the nineteenth century, to make the
attempt, and some even flatter themselves that they are succeed
ing , but the sturdy reply of human consciousness is, that the four
elements are diverse and not transmutable; or, if any trans
mutation is possible, it must be confined to this, that matter may,
in some manner, be an effect of spirit. But to us, finite spirits,
nothing more is granted than the re-arrangement, the partial con
trol of matter, not its creation. Matter, as we know it, is distinguished by its being Ae recipient and dispenser of force ; which
force, so far as we know it, is from spirit alone. This obedience
of matter to spirit gives justification to our suspicion that it is the
creation of spirit.
Space and time are without parts, and are indivisible except by
a mental act. This division is suggested to us by manifest motion
in matter. Force shows itself in matter by moving it; that motion
calls our attention to the space and time, within which the motion
is taking place ; and we divide mentally this space and time, first
from the remainder of the boundless contiguities, secondly into
smaller parts. Thus geometry and algebra are generated, the
sciences which deal respectively with space and time, those pure
entities, the relation of which to the Infinite Spirit we cannot com
prehend, but which we become familiar with in the finite portion
embraced in our experience, in the universe and its history.
In geometry, the mind imposes upon indivisible space arbi
trary boundaries of division, according to arbitrarily selected laws
or conditions. These boundaries are of three kinds, surfaces, lines
and points. The point is a zero of magnitude in space, but never
theless is not nothing ; which is nowhere, while the point is some
where. This contradiction in terms, that a point should have no
extension, and yet have a position, is one of those instances, in
which geometry abounds, in which the mind is compelled, by the
�1874.]
Symmetry in Space.
25
necessity of direct vision, to admit each of two truths, which are to
logic mutual contradictories. The mathematician modifies the law
of non-contradictiop. by confining it to propositions concerning finite
quantities.
A lower form of a zero of. magnitude in space is the line, which
is extended, at each point, only in two opposite directions ; and the
lowest form is the surface ; for which there can, ^^ach point, be
drawn a line, such that the surface extends, in every direction,
only perpendicular to that line. ‘GeometersRefine these lower
forms of zeroes, or boundaries in space, by the further self-contradiction of imagining the movement of a point; a double contradic
tion, since space is itself incapable of motion, much more a zero
of magnitude.
A geometrical line is defined as the path of a point, moving ac
cording to certain conditions, which always limit its motion, in
each of its positions, to one of two opposite directions. Or, it
may be defined as a continuous series of all the points which fulfill
certain conditions, among which must be the condition that each
point is contiguous only to two others, one on the opposite side to
the other. So also a surface may be defined as the space in which
a point moves, when, in each position which it assumes, a straight.
line may be drawn through it, and its motion be permitted, in any
direction at right angles to that line, and in no^other. Or, the
surface may be defined as a series of points, through any one of
which a straight line may be drawn, sue® that all the contiguous
points lie in a direction at right angles to that line. To either of
these definitions of a surface, we must add, in order to make a
geometrical surface, some other conditions which the points must
fulfill.
When the geometer has selected these conditions and would in
vestigate the form which the points, so conditioned, would enclose,
he is not contented with the mere act of reason; he endeavors to
bring imagination to his aid; to make a sensible image of the form.
If he has been blind from his birth, he imagines his fingers feeling
out the form ; otherwise he embodies it visibly, as in a drawing,
or in a model. If he would convey a knowledge of it to others,
he calls matter to his aid, and forces atoms of chalk, black lead,
wood or thread, to fulfill approximately the conditions which his
/
�26
Symmetry in Space.
[Mar.
geometric law imposes upon the series of points. This drawing,
or model, is an expression of his idea, an enunciation of his law.
A geometrical figure, whether upon the blackboard, or the printed
page, or in a block of wood, or a set of stretched threads, is in
controvertible evidence that a geometer has been expressing, by
this means, a geometrical thought.
The laws which please the geometer most highly, are those which
give us symmetrical figures, figures in which part answers to part;
either on opposite sides of one line or one surface, or about more
than one line or surface. This taste is not peculiar to the geometer;
symmetry pleases the most savage, as it does the civilized man ;
and men whose whole ability lies in other directions, as well as the
mathematician. A striking proof of the universality of this taste
was shown in the sudden and universal popularity attained by the
kaleidoscope. In a few years that toy of Brewster found its way
to every parlor, and the heart of every child, ay, and every man
in Christendom. But its sole magic consists in the symmetry which
it imparts to a few fragments of irregular form. But that magic
is sufficient to enchant all who come within its sway. We have
never found any one uninterested in an extempore kaleidoscope,
made by throwing open the piano, and placing brightly colored
articles at one end of the folding lid.
All regularity of form is as truly an expression of thought, as a
geometrical diagram can be. The particles of matter take the form
in obedience to a force which is acting according to an intellectual
law, imposing conditions on its exercise. It does not altSr the reality
of this ultimate dependence of symmetry upon thought, simply to
introduce a chain of secondary causes, between the original think
ing and the final expression of the thought.
Many of the geometer’s a priori laws were, indeed, first sug
gested by the forms of nature. Natural symmetry leads us to in
vestigate, first, the mathematical law which it embodies ; then, the
mechanical law which embodies it. Thus all the benefits which
have come to our race from the pursuit, and discovery and use of
the keys to physical science, have been bestowed upon us through
these suggestions of geometrical thoughts in the outward creation.
But in the pursuit of mathematical knowledge, men began, at an
early age, to invent and investigate a priori laws, laws of which
�1874.]
Symmetry in Space.
27
they had not received any suggestion from nature. And the in
tellectual origin of the forms of nature was made still more mani
fest when these a priori laws, of man’s invention, were, in many
cases, afterwards discovered to have been truly embodied in the
universe from the beginning; as, for example, Plato’s conic sec
tions in the forms and orbits of the heavenly bodies^ and Euclid’s
division in extreme and mean ratio.
The division in the extreme and mean ratio was invented by the
early geometers, without any known suggestion. It is evident that
this division might be illustrated in a great variety of ways. A
whole must be divided into two parts, such that the first shall bear
the same relation to the second that the second does to the whole.
No matter what the whole is, a division of it approximately in
this manner would be an expression of the idea of extreme and
mean ratio. If the whole were a quantity (distance, angle, sur
face, volume, value, time, velocity,
and the relation were
that of magnitude, the whole would be to the smaller part, as
unity is to half the difference between three and the square root of
five. If, on the other hand, the whole were p work of art of any
kind, or a system of thought, the relation would not be one of mere
magnitude ; and the division would be a work of gnore ingenuity.
But, whatever the whole, or the relation, the proper division would
be an expression of the idea.
*
Now we have, in nature, at least three embodiments of the law
of extreme and mean ratio, two of which are very striking. The
botanists find that two successive leaves, counting upward on the
stem, stand at van angle with each oth?er, that is either one-half,
one-third, two-fifths, three-eighths of the whole circle ; or some
higher approximation to this peculiar proportion. The seed vessels
and buds on a spike of broad-leaved plantain afford one of the
most instructive examples. They are usually set on a high ap
proximation, so that the order is not apparent. Taking a piece of
the spike, an inch or so in length, between your hands, and
gently twisting reduce it to three ; while a slight twist in the
opposite direction brings out five rows,, which a harder twist re
duces to two.
The efficient cause of this arrangement we do not know. It has
been ingeniously suggested that it might be produced by a simple
�28
Symmetry in Space.
[Mar.
law of the genesis of cells. Let us suppose that each cell emits
a new cell at regularly recurring intervals of time, and that the
new cell begins to generate cells at the expiration of two intervals
after its birth. A cell developing on a plane, under this law,
would produce its cells in the phyllotactic order of the leaves, in
the terminal rosette of a plant. But it is difficult to see how this
hypothesis can be made'to include and explain the whole phenomena
of the arrangement.
The final causes, .although the devout mind always recognizes
the impossibility of man’s attaining a certainty concerning all the
final causes of a phenomenon, are more obvious. It has been
shown that this division of the circle insures in the only perfect
way to each leaf its chance at zenith light, its best chance at air ;
in short, that this phyllotactic law distributes the leaves most evenly
about the stem.
In the solar system, if we divide the periodic time of each planet
by that of the planet next farthest from the sun, we shall have, be
ginning with the quotient
Uranus’ year divided by that of
Neptune and ending with the quotient of Mercury’s year divided
by that of Venus, a series of factions agreeing very closely with
the approximations of the phyllotactic law. The problem was
similar. The planets would not have remained in proper subjection
to the sun had they been allowed to group themselves too fre
quently in one rebellious line, hanging upon the golden chain of ,
his attraction, dragging him and themselves from their proper
orbits. They must be kept evenly distributed about the sun ; and
since they are movifig, the times of their revolution, their angular
velocities must be divided by the same law as that which divides
the stationary angles of the leaves.
We have then in the plants a geometrical or angular illustration,
and in the pitots an algebraical or temporal illustration, of the
mathematical idea of extreme and mean ratio. The inference
seems irresistible,— these two illustrations, which cannot be imag
ined as having any causal or genetic connection, owe their intel
lectual relation to having sprung from One Mind.
This is a striking illustration, but the same inference may be
drawn from every form in nature, — planet, crystal, plant and
janimals. All natural forms conform more or less closely to
�1874.]
Symmetry in Space.
29
geometrical ideals; sufficiently near to suggest their ideas to men
fitted to receive the suggestion; sufficiently near to show that the
whole of nature^may, in one sense, be regarded as a series of draw
ings and models, by which to teach the mathematics to students in
the school of life.
The final causes may never, however, be considered as wholly
known. The perfection of the Divine workmanship is shown in
the adaptation of each object in nature to a great variety of ends.
The geometrical laws, on which the world is built, are adapted to
all the wants and all the needs of every creature*. Our human
needs are innumerably various, and nature finds|means to satisfy
them all. Our intellect craves symmetry, and through symmetry
is first led to the perception of geometric law. But we love the
symmetry before we perceive the law. The sense of beauty is
satisfied, even in externals, most perfectly, and fills us with most
pleasure, in things that the understanding fails to analyze and
define. Much has been written concerning an analysis of the
beauty of outline ; one great paintersthinking it consists in flexure,
others assigning it to a spiral, or a helix, or an ellipse; while
Darwin refers it to early association, while yet a suckling, with
the form of the mother’s breast. I venture with diffidence to
give my own opinion, that the perception of beauty in outline is
the unconscious perception, of geometric law,—just as the per
ception of harmony has been demonstrated to be the unconscious
perception of arithmetical ratios in time, or algebraic law. The
beauty of outline, I would say of external form, independently of
expression, is in proportion to the simplicity of the geometric law,
and to the variety of the outline which embodies it. Nor is it
essential to the highest enjoyment of beauty that the conformity
to geometric ideals should be perfect, any more than it is essential
to the highest music to have the harmony perfect. On the con
trary, the higher degrees of beauty are apt to be found in forms
that suggest, rather than embody, the ideal; and especially in
figures potentially, but not actually, symmetrical. The monotony,
which might result from unbroken regularity of form, is avoided,
and a new grace is given, for example, to the higher animals, by
their temporary disguise of symmetry, in their varied positions and
movements. In the sea shells, the same end is attained by the
�Symmetry in Space.
30
[Afar,
spiral form, which so many of them take ; in which there is not an
actual symmetry, but only a law of symmetry, the perfect develop
ment of which would require an infinite number of -convolutions.
In the forms of vegetative life, there is the widest departure
from actual symmetry, and yet a constant suggestion of its laws.
The phyllotactic law secures to the tree a general regularity, and
equal growth upon every side ; and yet, by complication of detail,
combined with occasional failure or destruction of buds, secures'
an endless variety of graceful forms, in each species. May we
not then name beauty as another final cause, another end secured
by the adoption of the division in extreme and mean ratio ? The
approximations are beautiful to us, and the pleasure given to us
was foreseen when the law was adopted. May it not also have
been felt; and may not the forms of flowers be but approximations
toward the expression of an infinite beauty, hidden, from all finite
sense, in the incommensurable ratio of that surd ? That the ex
ternal symmetry of animals may have beauty as its final cause, is
rendered probable from the lack of symmetry in the viscera, which
are hidden from sight.
Whatever be our speculations upon such points, this at least is
manifest, that the sense and the presence of beauty are kindly
adapted to each other in the world. Even shapeless matter de
clares its Creator’s power; the perfect symmetry of crystalline
forms, the potential symmetry of all the organic worlds show forth
His wisdom and His love.
Thomas Hill.
•fc-
�
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
Symmetry in space
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Hill, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Boston
Collation: 24-30 p. ; 24 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. From the Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine. Vol. 1 (March 1874). For content of complete issue see: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=wu.89069654465;view=1up;seq=7 (accessed 11/2017).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Unitarian Review and Religious Magazine]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1874]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5431
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (Symmetry in space), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
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
Astronomy
Science
Conway Tracts
Space and Time
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/145e0a161b3e592b150a446f43da0ce3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=gevGvGozRDCQ4IEuzjfpj0ze844xcQIxQiqbcAqqeEdrqXydppq9cwNdMXYz0qSd%7EvGT5xQWKh8dz-nddI1x4JPC%7E4sLJ5RXK2t0x%7EXjEHRQn%7ECPW0CS8bspGAbaRZkgJYtWNwEaE9BGkC23n0H7cYlUPPM7MlBKm6U%7EDHuECgg9ryqcE0gkusVrDuiaOYEPhu32s1inXGpOvzzKBE0fSlok09Yy-OU7cwIKinSxFLwQyFO92%7EtpUs7h3E8Bsxray%7EekpcpMOiEQ0Vqdoc8GSV5e6VeQTrRMN8HVjSFCjXe1OGmH1egftWzbgVbDVRHePpUl0OHLve8sJrTDp5wOrQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
67d8ba17f2a21b4b1797ad22288e0219
PDF Text
Text
���������������������������������
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Life of "Chinese" Gordon
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: New and rev. ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: 28, [4] p. : ill. (ports.) ; 21 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway.
Please note that this pamphlet contains language and ideas that may be upsetting to readers. These reflect the time in which the pamphlet was written and the ideologies of the author.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Allen, Charles Harris
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Abraham Kingdon & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT47
Subject
The topic of the resource
Slavery
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 Life of "Chinese" Gordon), 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
Charles George Gordon
China
Conway Tracts
Slavery
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/29e7ac2c8fc237aa48279ff06598059a.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=NTtsVVbWtiHSO3X4Mz2vCArUHQgCQRCF3suLu858vdB9N97OjZWmxsjMSkPvvN%7EHYieBh22iKZHnAUMcmSZJYDfP0dlZCHXLeBWpu6BiZ6kw49vahdB-w%7EJ%7Eac61964ad%7EqH8Zn6Uv2SK0etd%7Eam36LaE1U0EAPCCiuR6qCZMWous3DXOC32FDfJTKHNyL22X7I%7EcgeBXtNoLQ2H6THobnBLvEs7lFUAIVZcODaBfUn3sGOqW1j2lsPjcdLRaugDHHvrugPmTSAAMW6qPXKGH8MXsg%7EKvbMKjU9lkvwWiNHqAUm5Q-MC9f1TxZmBpHlzTErRd4lp5Qy%7EPCKshaRMCg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7505787663ad4c624280dc65fbf49ba8
PDF Text
Text
THE
NEW
GOSPEL
OF
PEACE
ABSORBING TO
ST.
BENJAMIN.
Manchester:
ABEL HEYWOOD, PRINTER, 56 & 58, OLDHAM STREET
London:
BACON & CO., 48, PATERNOSTER ROW.
��THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE
ACCORDING TO ST. BENJAMIN.
CHAPTER I.
1 The Mystery. 2 War in the Land of Unculpsalm. o Phernandiwud. 10 Seeketh a partner. 17 Searcheth the Scripture.
19 Findeth something 1$ his advantage. 24 And walketh
slantindicularly. 25 Is brought before the Judge. Wl Showeth
his innocence.
1. The mystery of the new gospel of peace.
2. In the days of Abraham, when there was war in the
land of Unculpsalm, and all the people fought with weapons
of iron, and with shipm®$$B®n.
3. (For there came a man eufcof the country beyond the
North Sea, a son of Tubal Cain, and joined himself unto
trie people of Unculpsalm, aridt made unto them ships of
iron, with towers upon the decks thereof, and beaks upon
the prows thereof, very mighty and marvellous),
4. There went out one who preached a new gospel of
peace. And it was in fhisiwise.
5. It came to pass in those days that in the country of
Mannatton, in the city which is called Gotham, that is over
against Jarzee, as thou goest down by the great river, the
River Hutzoon, to Communipah, there was a man whose
name was Phernandiwud.
6. And he was a just man, and a righteous; and he
walked uprightly before the world.
�6
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
28. And he clid so. And Phernandiwud went out from,
before him justified in his wisdom and his innocence.
CHAPTER II.
1 The Pahdees. 2 They govern Gotham. 5 Phernandiwud
maketh friends of the Pahdees. 8 Who make him Chief Ruler
of the City. 10 And together they devour the substance of the
Men of Gotham. 14 The Watchmen of Gotham removed
from the rule of Phemandiwud. 17 Who gathereth together
the Hittites and the Ilammerites. 18 And conceiveth with the
Mystery of the New Gospel of Peace.
1. Now, it came to pass that in the city of Gotham were
many Pahdees, like unto, locusts for multitude. And they
were not of the land of Unculpsalm, But came from an island
beyond the great sea^a land of famine and oppression.
And they knew nothing. They read not, neither did they
write, and like the multitudes of Nineveh, many of them
did not know their right hand from their left.
2. Therefore the men of Unculpsalm, who dwelt in
Gotham, troubled themselves fettle to govern the city, and
paid the Pahdees richly to govern it for them.
3. For the men of Gotham were great merchants and
artificers, trading to the ends of the earth; diligent and
cunning in their busing’ , wise and orderly in their houses
holds; and they got great gain, and the fame of their wisdom
and their diligence was Spread abroad. Wherefore they
said, why shall we leave our crafts and our merchandise,
and our ships, and our feasts, and the gathering together of
our wives and our daughters, and our men-singers and our
women-singers, to give our time to ruling the city ? Behold,
here are the Pahdees who know nothing, who read not,
neither do they write, and who know not their right hand
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
7
from their left, and who have never governed even them
selves, and will he glad to govern the city in our stead.
4. Wherefore the men of Unculpsalm who dwelt in
Gotham, went the one to his craft, the other to his ships,
and the other to his merchandise; and the Pahdees gov
erned Gotham.
5. Now Phernandiwud saw that the men whom the
Pahdees appointed to be officers in Gotham fed at the pub
lic crib, and waxed fat, and, increased in substance. More
over, so great and mighty was the city of Gotham that they
who ruled it were powerful in the. land of Unculpsalm;
stretching out their hands from the North even unto'the
South, and from the East even unto the West; but most of
all were they powerful with the men of the South.
6. And Phernandiwud said within himself, Shall I not
feed at the public crib, and wax fat, and increase in sub
stance, and become a man of, power in the land of Uncul
psalm ?
7. So he made friends unto himsgjf among the Pahdees,
and of certain men of Unculpsalm who had joined them
selves unto the Pahdees, and .who called themselves Dim
michrats.
8. And he became a great man among them. And they
made him chief ruler of the.gity, And it was of the Pah
dees that he was firsts called Phernandiwud.
9. Now, when Phernandiwud was ©hief ruler of Gotham,
the Pahdees, and the men, of Unculpsalm which were also
Dimmichrats, did what was right in their own eyes ; and
they worked confusion in the city, and\ devoured the sub
stance of the men of Gotham. And the watchmen of the
city were as clay in the hands of Phernandiwud.
10. For he said, I will have a one man power; and the
one man shall be me, even me Phernandiwud; and the
Pahdees, and the Dimmichrats, and the watchmen of
Gotham, shall do my will; and after they have done my
will they may do what is right in their own eyes, and work
confusion, and devour the people’s substance.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
11. And the men of Gotham were amazed and confounded;
and they said one to another,
12. Behold, we are held as naught by Phernandiwud and
them that are under him, and he will destroy us and our
eity.
13. But they could not cast him out, because of the
Pahdees, and the men of Unculpsalm who also were Dimmichrats.
14. Wherefore they said, we will pray the governor and
rulers of the province to take the watchmen of the city from
under his hand, and putin other watchmen who shall guard
the city, and the country round about the same; and he
shall no longer work confusion^and devour our substance,
and destroy our city.
15. Wherefore the watchmen were taken from under his
rule, and there were appointed other watchmen, whose
captains were not Pahdees and followers of Phernandiwud.
16. But Phernandiwud, because he loved the people, and
himself first, as number one of the people, withstood the
watchmen which the governor and the rulers of the province
had appointed. And he gathered together his watchmen
and much people of the Pahdees, and of the men of Uncul
psalm which also were Dimmichrats.
17. Hittites, so called, because they hit from the shoulder,
and Hammerites, because they brake the heads of all them
that set themselves up against them.
18. And the watchmen of Phernandiwud, and the Pahdees,
and the Hittites and the Hammerites, fought with the
watchmen appointed by the governor and chief rulers of the
province, doing in this the will of Phernandiwud. And
they fought many times, and they brake each the heads of
the other: yet was neither vanquished.
19. And when the judges of the province saw this, they
declared unto the governor, that by the great law of the
province, he could march an army upon Pherandiwud, and
his watchmen, and his Pahdees, and his Hittites, and his
Hammerites, and put them to the sword.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
20. And when Phernandiwud read this declaration of the
Judges, he saw that there was an end of his rule over the
watchmen, of his one man power in Gotham, and he said
unto the watchmen, and to the Pahdees, and the Hittites,
and the Hammerites, Get you to: your houses, I have no ■
thing more to give unto you.
21. But he charged the cost thereof unto the city.
22. And this was th®, first tirne that Phernandiwud con
ceived in his mind th© mystery of the new gospel of peace,
CHAPTER. III.
1 The War in the land of Unculpsalm. 3 The Great Covenant.
5 The greatness of the land of Unculpsalm. I Provoked the
hatred of Kings and tffjpressws. 8 27ie Niggahs. 11 And
the Covenant concerning them. 14 The Niggahs. 16 There
arise men in Belial. 19 The Tshivulree. 22 And what the
Tshivulree did to the men of Belial. 24 The Dimmichrats
join themselves to the Tshivulree. 26 Thfr Everlasting Niggah. 27 Phillip of Atoms', aPrw$of Beelzebub. 29 Isaiah
• thrusteth him out of the Tabernacle. 31 But the Men of
Belial prevail. 35 And the spirit Bak Bohn possesseth their
Disciples. 39 The Phiretahs and Prestenbruux.
1. Now the war in the. land* of Unculpsalm was in this
-•wise.
2. The people were of one blood, but the land was in
many provinces. And the people ofi'the provinces joined
themselves together and cast off the yokeof a stubborn
king who oppressed them beyond the great sea. And
they said let us hake no king, but let us choose for our
selves a man to rule over us; and let us no longer be many
provinces, but one nation; only in those things which con
cern not the nation let the people in each province do what
fig right in their own eyes.
�10
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
3. And let it be written upon parchment and be for a
covenant between us and our children, and our children’s
children forever—like unto a law of the Medes and Per
sians which altereth not.
4. And they did so. And the Great Covenant became
the beginning and the end of all things unto the men of
Unculpsalm.
5. And the men of Unculpsalm waxed great and mighty
and rich : and the earth was filled with the fame of their
power and their riches; and their ships covered the sea.
And all nations feared them. But they were men of peace,
and went not to war of their own accord ; neither did
they trouble or oppress the men of other nations; but
sought each man to sit under his own vine and his own
fig tree. And there were no poor men and few that did
evil born in that land, : except thou go southward of the
border of Masunandicsun.
6. And this was noised abroad; and it came to pass
that the poor and the down-trodden, and the oppressed of
other lands left the lands in which they were born, and
went and dwelt in the land of Unculpsalm, and prospered
therein, and no man molested them. And they loved that
land.
7. Wherefore, the kings and the oppressors of other lands,
and they that devoured the substance of the people, hated
the men of Unculpsalm. Yet, although they were men of
peace, they made not war upon them; for they were
many and mighty. Moreover ■ they were rich and bought
merchandise of othef nations, and sent them corn and gold.
8. Now there were inthe land of Unculpsalm Ethiopi
ans, which the men of Unculpsalm called Niggahs. And
their skins were black, and for hair they had wool, and
their shins bent out forward and their heels thrust out
backward; and their ill savor went up.
9. Wherefore the forefathers of the men of Unculpsalm,
had made slaves of the Niggahs, and bought them ancL
sold them like cattle.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
11
10. But so it was that when the people Of the land of
Unculpsalm made themselves into one nation, the men of
the North said, We will no longer buy and sell the Nig
gahs, but will set them free; neither shall more be brought
from Ethiopia for slaves unto this land.
11. And the men of the Sduth answered and said, We
will buy and sell our Niggahs; and moreover we will beat
them with stripes, and they shsftl be our heWers of wood
and drawers of water forever | < and when our Niggahs
flee into your provinces, ye shall give them to us, every
man his Niggah; and after a time there shaft. no more be
brought from Ethiopias < as ye say. And this shall be a
part of the great covenant.«
12. And it was a covehant between the men of the
North and the men of thb South.
13. And it came to p&sg that thereafter the men of the
South and the Dimmichrats of the North, and the Pahdees
gave themselves night and day to the preservation of this
covenant about theNiggahs. ' ■ <
o.b i,>.
14. And the Niggahs increased and multiplied till they
darkened all the land of the South. And the men of
Unculpsalm who dwelt in the -South took their women for
concubines and went in unto them, and begat of them sons
and daughters. And they bought and sold: their sons and
daughters, even the fruit of their loins; and beat them
with stripes, and made them hewers of wood and drawers
of water.
: .r.< ,<d
15. For they said, are not, thesd Niggahs otir Niggahs?
Yea, even more than, the other Niggah&<: For the other
Niggahs we bought, or our fathers^ with money; but these,
are they not flesh of our flesh, M -blood Uf Our blood, and
bone of our bone; and shall we not do What we will with
our own?
316. But there arose men in the northern provinces of
the land of Unculpsalm and in the countries beyond the
great sea, iniquitous men, saying, Man’s blood cannot be
�12
THE NEW GOSPEL OK PEACE.
bought with money; foolish men saying, Though the Niggah’s skin be black and his hair woolly, and his shins like
unto cucumbers, and his heels thrusting out backward,
and though he have an ill savor not to be endured by those
who get not children of Niggah women, is yet a man;
men of Belial which said, All things whatsoever ye would
that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; for
this is the law and the prophets.
17. And the slaves were for a reproach throughout all
the world unto the men of the South, and even to the
whole land of Unculpsalm. But by reason of the great
covenant and the laws of the provinces, the men of the
North had naught to do fe this matter.
18. But the men of the South which had Niggahs (for
there were multitudes which had no Niggahs, and they
were poor and oppressed) heeded it not; for they were a
stiffnecked generation. And they said we will not let
our Niggahs go free; for they are our chattels, even as
our horses and our sheep, our swine and our oxen; and
we will beat them, and slay them, and sell them, and be
get children of them, and no man shall gainsay us. We
stand by the Great Covenant.
19. Moreover we are Tshivulree.
20. Now to be of the Tshivulree was the chief boast
among the men of the South, because it had been a great
name upon the earth. For of olden time he who was of
the Tshivulree was bound by an oath to defend the weak
and succor the oppressed, yea, even though he gave his
life for them. But among the men of the South he only
was of the Tshivulree who ate his bread in the sweat of
another’s face, who robbed the laborer of his hire, who
oppressed the weak, and set his foot upon the neck of the
lowly, and who sold from the mother the fruit of her
womb and the nursling of her bosom. Wherefore the
name of Tshivulree stank in the nostrils of all the nations 21. l or they were in the darkness of a false dispensa-.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
13
tion, and had not yet learned the mystery of the new gospel
of peace.
22. And when the Tshivulree found within their borders
those men of the North, iniquitous men which said that
man’s blood cannot be bought, and men of Belial which
said, Do ye unto all men as ye would have all men do unto
you, they seized upon them and beat them with many
stripes, and hanged them upon trees, and roasted them with
fire, and poured hot pitch upon them, and rode them upon
sharp beams, very grievous to bestride, and persecuted
them even as it was fitting such pestilent fellows should be
persecuted.
23. And they said unto the men of the North, cease ye
now to send among us »these men of Belial preaching
iniquity, cease also to listen unto them yourselves, and re
spect the Great Covenant, or we will destroy this nation.
24. Then the men of Unculpsalm which called them
selves Dimmichrats, and the Pahdees, seeing that the
Tshivulree of the South had only one thought, and that
was for the Niggah, said, We will*, join ourselves unto the
Tshivulree, and we will have, but one thought with them,
even tbe Niggah; and we shall rule the land of Uncul
psalm, and we shall divide the spoilfr i
25. And they joined themselves Unto the Tshivulree;
and the Tshivulree of the South, and the men of the North,
which called themselves Dimmichrats, and the Pahdees
ruled the land of Unculpsalm' for many years; and they
divided the spoil. And theja had but ofic^ thought-; even
for the Niggah.
26. Wherefore he was called the everlasting Niggah.
27. Now, about these days came Philip, from the new
Athens, a priest of Beelze bub, and he taught in the Taber
nacle at Gotham.
28. And Philip had many words, but only one thought;
and that, like the thought of the men of the South, was
for the Niggah. But he respected not the Great Coveu-
�14
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
ant. And he said unto the people ye ought to set the
Niggah free.
29. And it came to pass that when he was teaching in
the Tabernacle one Isaiah entered (not the prophet, but he
who was captain of a band of the Hammerites) and pro
tested unto him that he should no more teach such pesti
lent doctrine. And having his band of Hammerites with
him, he knocked Philip down, and thrust him from the
pulpit wherein he was speaking, and drave him out of the
Tabernacle.
30. Now this was the first ministration of the new gospel
of peace. But as yet it was not preached; for it had no
apostle.
31. But in process of time the ministers of Belial turned
the hearts of many men, even of them which called them
selves Dimmichrats fife iniquity;; and they all began to say
that the strength of the great nation of Unculpsalm should
not be used to oppress the Niggah; declaring in the
wickedness of their imaginations and; the hardness of their
hearts, that whatsoever the people of Uuculpsalm would
that bthers should do to them, even so they should do to
others, even unto Niggahs. '■
32. But they had respecteunto the Great Covenant, and
sought not to set the Niggahs free; and they returned unto
the men of the South the Niggahs that fled from their
provinces, according to the Great Covenant.
33. Moreover the men of the North made soft answers
unto the men of the South, and strove to turn away their
wrath, and to live with them as brethren. For though they
feared them not, neither hated them, they did fear that they
would destroy the nation.
34. And the Tshivulree of the South saw that the men
of the North feared their threats ; and they waxed bolder,
and said we will not only keep our Niggahs in our own
provinces, but we will take them into all the country of
Unculpsalm, which is not yet divided into provinces. And,
they went roaring up and down the land.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
15
35. But in process of time it came to pass that the spirit
of their forefathers appeared among the men of the North,
even the great spirit Bak Bohn; and he stiffened up the
people mightily.
36. So that they said unto the men of the South, Hear
us, our brethren! We would live with you in peace, and
love you, and respect the Great Covenant. And the
Niggahs in your provinces: ye shall keep, and slay, and
sell, they and. the children: which-, ye beget of them, into
slavery,( for" bond men and bond women for ever. Yours
be the sin before the Lord,, not ours; for it is your doing,
and we are not answerable for it* And your Niggahs
that flee from your provinces they shall be returned unto
you, according to the Great Covenant. Only take care
lest peradventure ye make captives the Niggahs of our
provinces which we have made Free men. Ye shall in no
wise take a Niggah of them.
37. Thus shall it be i wij/h your Niggahs and in your
provinces, and ydurs shall be the< blame forever. But out
of your provinces, into the common land of Unculpsalm,
ye shall not carry your Niggahs except they be made
thereby free. For that land is common, and your laws
and the statutes of your provinces, by which alone ye make
bondmen, run not in that land. And for all that is done in
that land we must bear the blame: with you. For that
land is common; and we share whatever is done therein;
and the power of this nation and the might of its banner
shall no longer be used to oppress the lowly and to fasten
the chain upon the captive. Keep ye then your bondmen
within your own provinces.' 1 1 '■■■. ■
38. Then the Tshivulree of the South waxed wroth, and
foamed in their anger, and the air of the land was filled
with their cursings and their revilings. And certain of
them which were men of blood, and which were possessed
of devils, and had difficulties, and slew each other with
knives and shooting irons, did nothing all their time but
rave through the land about the Niggah.
�16
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
39. Now these men were the fore-runners of him that
preached the new gospel of peace, and prepared the way
before him. Wherefore they were called Phiretahs.
40. And it came to pass that one of the Phiretahs, whose
name was Prestenbruux, was wroth with Charles, who
was surnamed the Summoner, who was one of the chief
law-givers of the land of Unculpsalm, and also one of the
men of Belial, who taught iniquity, saying, whatsoever ye
would that men should do to you do ye even so to them,
even unto Niggahs.
For Charles the Summoner had declared that it was not
lawful for the men of the South to take their Niggahs out
of their own provinces^ And thus it was that Prestenbruux
was offended in him.
41. Wherefore Prestenbruux took unto himself other
Phiretahs, and he sought Charles the Summoner, and
found him alone at a table, writing in the great hall of
Unculpsalm. And he came upon him unawares, and he
smote him and beat him to the ground, so that he was
nigh unto death.
42. And this was the second ministration of the new
gospel of peace. But even now it was not preached, for
it had yet no apostle.
43. And after these things, James, whose surname being
interpreted meaneth Facing-both-ways, ruled in the land
of Unculpsalm.
CHAPTER IV.
1 The choice of Abraham the Honest. 10 The Phiretas rebel
against him. 14 Compromise. 17 The Phiretahs will have
no more Compromise. 18 Ken Edee and Robert of Joarji.
23 Phernandiwud compromiseth unto Robert. 24 The
men of the North wax wroth.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
17
1; Now the time drew nigh when James should cease
40 rule in the land of Unculpsalm.
2. And the men of the North, save the Dimmichrats,
among whom were the Pahdees, strove to have Abraham,
who was surnamed the honest, made ruler in the place of
James Facing-both-ways.
3. But the Phiretahs of the South said,- Let us choose,
and let the voices be numbered, and if oui? man be chosen,
it is well, but if Abraham, we will’ destroy the nation.
4. But the men of the North believed them not, because
of the Great Covenant, and because they trusted them to
be of good faith in this matter. For among the men of
the North, even those who lived by casting lots for gold,
stood by the lot when it was cast; And the men of the
North believed not that men -of their own blood, whose
sons were married unto their daughters, and whose daugh
ters unto their sons, would faithlessly do this thing which
they threatened.
p 5. But the men of th® North knew not how the Niggah
-had driven out all, other thoughts from the hearts of the
men of the South, even so that they would violate the
Great Covenant, and set at nought the election according
thereunto if it went against them.
6. And there were throughout the provinces of the land
of Unculpsalm at the North great multitudes, Dimmichrats,
of whom were the Pahdees, who' were friends of the
Phiretahs of the Sonth, and wished them well, and labored
with them; for they said, It is by thd alliance of the men
of the South, and by reason of the everlasting Niggah,
that we rule the land.
7. But they deceived themselves; for it was the Phire
tahs which ruled the land, using the Dimmichrats, and by
the one thought of the everlasting Niggah.
8. Yet it came to pass that when the voices of the people
were numbered, according to the Great Covenant, Abraham
was chosen.
�18
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
9. Then the Phiretahs of the South began to do as they
had threatened ; and they gathered together in their pro
vinces, and said, Our provinces shall no longer be a part of
the land of Unculpsalm, for we will not have this man
Abraham to rule over us.
10. Yet were there men of the South, a great multitude,
among whom was Stephen, of Joarji, who said, not so.
Why will ye do this great evil and destroy the nation ? It
is right for us to respect the Great Covenant. If the man
who had our voices had been chosen,, the men of the North
would have received, him, and obeyed him as the chief ruler
in the land of Unigulpsalm; and it is meet and right
that we should do likewise, even according to the Great
Covenant. Moreover, we have suffered no wrong at the
hands of the new rulers; and the old were men of our own
choosing. Will ye make this land like unto Mecsicho ?
11. But the Phiretahs would not hearken unto these men,
and went on their way, and beat some of them, and hanged
others, and threatened noisily, and> gathering unto them all
the people of the baser sort, and inflaming them with hate
and strong drink, they set up a rule of terror through
out their provinces. Bor the Phiretahs were men of blood.
So the Phiretahs prevailed over the men who would have
respected the Great Covenant.
12. And the men of the North, both they who had given
their voices for Abraham and they who had given their voices
with the men of the (South against him, were amazed and
stood astounded. And they said among themselves, This
is vain boasting, and vaunting, such as we have seen afore
time, done for the sake of more compromise.
13. (Now in the land of Unculpsalm, when a man humbled
himself before another which threatened him, he was said
to compromise.)
14. And the Dimmichrats, save those who had hearkened
unto the ministers of Belial, said, Let us compromise our
selves again unto our Southern brethren, and it shall bewell with us.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
19
15. For they said among themselves, If the men of the
South go, they and their provinces, there will be no more
everlasting Niggah; and we shall cease to rule the land.
And if they go not, behold then they will remember that
we have compromised unto them, and they will again be
gracious unto their servants, and will admit us unto a share
in the government, and we shall rule the land as aforetime.
16. But the Phiretahs were wise in their generation, and
they saw that the Dimmichrats were of no more use unto
them, and that because the Hen Of Belial had prevailed
against the Dimmichrats, their power was gone in their
provinces; and so as they could no more use the Diminichrats, they would not listen to them, and spurned their
compromising, and spat upon it, and went on to destroy the
nation, and prepared to make war against Abraham if he
should begin to rule over them.
17. Now in those days there Was a man in Gotham named
Ken Edee, who was chief captain of the watchmen of the
city and the region round About; and in Joarji was a man
named Robert, who dwelt among the tombs, and who was
possessed of an evil spirit whose name was Blustah. And
Robert was a Phiretah.
18. And Ken Edee, chief d&pfain of the watch in Gotham,
found arms going from Gotham to the Phiretahs in Joarji,
and he seized them. For he said, Lest they be used to
destroy the nation, and against1 the Great Covenant, which
is the supreme law in the land of‘Unculpsalm, to which first
belongeth my obedience.
19. Then Robert, who dwelt among the tombs, being
seized upon by his demon Blustah, sent a threatening mes
sage unto Phernandiwud.
20. (For at this time Phernandiwud was chief ruler in
the city of Gotham.)
21. Saying, Wherefore keep ye the arms of the Phir
etahs ? Give them unto us that we may make war against
you, or it shall be worse for you.
�20
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
22. Then Phernandiwud, because he hated the chief of
the watchmen of Gotham, and because he hoped for the
good success of the Phiretahs, compromised himself unto
Robert, and crawled on his belly before him in the dust,
and said, Is thy servant a man that he should do this thing?
Thy servant kept no arms, neither would he do so. Let
them who have the evil spirit Bak Bohn do thus unto my
lords the Phiretahs. Behold, thy servant is no man, but a
Phlunkee.
23. (Now the Phlunkees were men who had never had
the spirit Bak Bohn, or who had had it, cast out of them,
because when they would, have prostrated, themselves and
humbled themselves in the dust and compromised to their
profit, the spirit rent them sore. So they had each of them
his Bak Bohn cast out of him.)
24. And the Phiretahs went on their way without hindrance. For James, by facing both ways, faced neither; and
both of the men of the South and the men of the North he
was not regarded. And the nation spued him out of its
mouth.
25. And Abraham ruled the land. But the Phiretahs
withstood him, and made wai' upon him, and drove his
captains out of the strongholds which were in their provinces,
and humbled the banners of Unculpsalm.
26. Then all the men of the North, even the Dimmi
chrats, of whom were the Pahdees, were exceedingly wroth;
and they rose up against the Phiretahs of the South, and
marched against them to drive them out of the strong places
which they had seized, and to plant thereon again the banner
of Unculpsalm.
27. For they all had exceeding reverence for the Great
Covenant, and they were filled with pride of their nation,
its might, and its wealth, and its vastness, and chiefly that
its people were more free than any other people, and that
its tillers of the soil and its wayfaring men could read and
understand, and that there each man sat under his own
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
21
vine and under his own fig tree with none to molest him
or make him afraid. And they worshipped the banner of
Unculpsalm, and its folds were unto them as the wings of
a protecting angel.
28. Moreover, the Dimmichrats said, We have striven
for our brethren of the South against the men of Belial,
who teach that it is wrong to oppress the Niggah by the
power of Unculpsalm, and now they can no longer use us
they cast us off. Behold, we will fight against them, lest,
also, they make good their threats, and sever their provinces
from our provinces, and there be no more everlasting Nig
gah, and our occupation be departed forever.
29. And thus it came to pass that there was war in the
land of Unculpsalm.
CHAPTER V. .
1 The Men of Gotham assemble. 2 Having each a Bak Bohn.
3 And Phernandiwud getteth a B$jt Bohn. 5 And speaketh
to the People. 8 Benjamin the Scribe goeth not to the
Assembly, but remaineth at home, mourning. 13 His policy
and his prosperity. 18 The War continueth for two years.
19 And why. 26 The Rulers of Jonbool help the Phiretahs.
1. Now, when the news came that the Phiinetahs of the
South with five thousand men, even a great multitude, had
driven one of the captains of Unculpsalm with a band of
ninety out of his stronghold, and whe# a proclamation of
Abraham was spread abroad, calling on the men of Un
culpsalm for the defence of their nation, and the retaking
of its strongholds, and the setting up of its banner which
mad been cast down, the men of Gotham gathered them
selves together in an open place before the world. And
Phemandiwud came also among them.
2. And each man that day out of whom had been cast
�22
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
the spirit Bak Bohn, took to himself another worse than
the first. And it seemed that day that in all Gotham there
was not one Phlunkee.
3. And Phernandiwud saw this. So he also straightway
took to himself a Bak Bohn.
4. For he said, Lest they also declare that I shall no
longer be chief ruler of the city.
5. And many men of Gotham spake unto the people.
Phernandiwud also lifted up his voice and said, Hear 0
men of Unculpsalm! give ear, 0 men of Gotham ! The
rulers of this land of Unculpsalm, chosen according to the
Great Covenant, have been defied. The Great Covenant
itself hath been set at naught. The banner of Unculpsalm
hath been cast down. The men of the South begin to
make good their threats that they would destroy this
nation.
6. But I say unto you, in the words of the great ruler Jah
Xunn, whom to our sorrow we have gathered to his fathers,
This nation must and shall be preserved, peaceably if we
can, forcibly if we must. And let us have a strong rule
and a splendid despotism, that we may do this thing as
becometh a great nation. For I have said always afore
time, as ye can bear me witness, Let us strengthen the
hands of the chief rulers, being myself chief ruler of this
city. Hear therefore my pledge unto you this day, I throw
myself wholly into this strife, with all my power and with
all my might.
7. Now there were men who noted that Phernandiwud
pledged himself with all his power and with all his might,
but not with all his soul. And they said, It is because he
hath sold his soul to the mighty spirit Sathanas, that he
should help him. And others said, Not so; for he had no
soul to sell. But these were scoffers and men of Belial.
8. But Benjamin, the brother of Phernandiwud, even
Benjamin the scribe, came not unto the congregation of
the people, but remained at home in his house, exceeding
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
23
wroth and very sorrowful.
For he said, Behold this
people is given over to the spirit Bak Bohn, and into the
hands of the men of Belial, who teach that the power of
Unculpsalm, and the might of the banner of Unculpsalm,
may not be used to oppress the Niggah. And this people
will no more compromise itself before the men of the
South; and there will be no more Phlunkees, and the
everlasting Niggah shall cease from off the land. And he
wept him sore; and cried out aloud, The sceptre hath departed
from the Dimmichrats, and the glory from the tents of
Tamunee!
9. And he wrote against the people of the North; and
sought to exorcise the mighty spii'it Bak Bohn, and to cast
it out of them. But he could not.
10. Now Benjamin the scribe was also a just man, and
a righteous, and walked .nprigh^y before the law.
11. For the law said, Thou shalt not live by casting lots
for gold. For he who liveth by casting lots for gold deceiveth the foolish man to his hurt, and defraudeth the widow
and the fatherless. It is an abomination. And he that
liveth by casting lots for gold shall be guilty and shall be
cast into prison.
12. Wherefore Benjamin being a just man and a right
eous, said, I will not live by casting lots for gold. Far be
it from me to do this thing which is unlawful, and which
will get me into prison. But I will sell policies ; and this
shall be the craft by which I will livby . ■
13. For what saith the prophet Daniel (not Sickles) ?
** And through his policy also shall he cause craft to prosper
in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart.”
14. For Benjamin also searched the Scripture, saying:
Peradventure I may find something therein to my advantage.
15. Wherefore Benjamin the scribe, through his policies
caused craft to prosper in his hand, and magnified himself
in his heart.
16. And he said within himself, I will be a lawgiver in
�TH® NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
the land of Unculpsalm, even for the men of Gotham.
Wherefore, he also made Unto himself friends among the
Pahdees; and he became a lawgiver in the land.
17. ' But the men of Gotham cast out Phernandiwud from
his office of chief ruler of the city; because they remem
bered that he had compromised upon his belly to Robert
who dwelt among the tombs, and had eaten dirt before him.
Also that he had said, Let us take our city out of the
nation. So they ,piit no trust in him18. Now so it was that after the space of nearly two
years the war which was in the land of Unculpsalm came
not to an end.
19. For the men of the North and the men Of the South
were of one blood; and both were valiant. And the men
of the North were more in number than the men of the
South. But the men of the South multiplied themselves
because of their Niggahs. For their Niggahs went not
to war, but stayed at home to 'till the soil. Moreover, they
were fighting upon their own ground; and much of their
land was mire and marshes, desert land and wilderness,
through which the armies of Unculpsalm wandered vainly,
and where they stuck fast. And the men of the South
cast up mounds upon their roads and before their cities,
and made strong their high places with towers. And their
land was filled with strong places, and with men of war
and engines of war, such as the men of the North looked
not to see in that land.
20. For the men of the South were astonished when the
men of the North marched against them; because the men
of the North had so often compromised themselves unto
them, that they thought they were all Phlunkees, and that
the spirit Bak Bohn had been utterly cast out of them.
And without that spirit men cannot fight.
21. Wherefore, the men of the South which had Nig
gahs, even the Tshivulree and the Phiretahs, seeing that
their case was desperate, forced all the men of their coun-
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
23
try into their armies, and took the men which had respect
unto the government of Unculpsalm, according to the
.Great Covenant, and loved the banner of Unculpsalm, and
would not fight against it, and they cast them into pits and
into dungeons, and scourged them, and hanged them upon
trees, after their manner. And being men of blood, and
seeing that their case was desperate/ they made it a terror
to live in their country except unto them that professed to
desire the destruction of the nation-.So all men professed
to desire it, or held their peace.
< r' r :
22. But in the land of the men of the North no man was
molested. And men of the South dwelt there, and were
spies and helpers unto their hEethrem And men of the
North, men of Peace, which also were. Phlunkees, helped
their masters the Tshivulree and the Phiretahs.
23. And the men of the South had among them great
captains; men of might and, wisdom in battle. And they
chose to be ruler over them Jeph, surnamed the Bepudiator.
24. (Now among the men of Unculpsalm when a man
would neither pay the debt that-he owed, nor acknowledge
it and ask it to be forgiven him, hewas? called-a repudiator.)
25. And Jeph had been captain over a thousand in the
armies of Unculpsalm when they went into Mecsicho, and
had also been one of the Great Council: and he was a
bold man, and a crafty, one who,knew neither fear nor
scruple.
26. Moreover, the mem of the South wero helped might
ily from beyond the sea, even by the men of, the kingdom
of Jonbool, from which their land was wrested by the
forefathers of the men of Unculpsalm.
27. Yet the men of Unculpsalm would have' loved the
men of that nation, even as a son loveth his mother which
bore him. But the nobles and the rich men of Jonbool
scorned the men of Unculpsalm, and would none of their
affection, and made light of their honor,
ohm vino -. ‘L h !
�96
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
28. For the men of Unculpsalm had forgiven the meh
of Jonbool their oppression and their scorn, and had
shown their Prince great honor; but the men who gov
erned that nation had not forgiven the men of Unculpsalm
their victory. And the prosperity and the glory of that
land was an offence to them. And certain of their scribes,
which also were Phlunkees, wrote scornfully against the
land of Unculpsalm, and bore false witness against it from
generation to generation, and got thereby gold and honor
in the land of Jonbool.
29. Wherefore, when the Tshivulree and the Phiretahs
lifted up the standard of revolt, the rulers of the land of
Jonbool said one to another,
30. Lo, the time for which we have waited without hope
draweth nigh; and the land of Unculpsalm may be
divided, and the nation destroyed, and the pride of the
people cast down. And the might of their power shall be
broken, and the glory of that land shall no longer be an
offence unto us; and we shall be avenged without peril
and without cost.
31. Likewise, also said the nobles and the great men of
other lands, where the few devoured the substance of the
many.
32. So the rulers of the land of Jonbool made proclama
tion to all the earth, that in that war they would regard
the men of the South which had revolted even as they
regarded the rulers of the land chosen according to the
Great Covenant. For they said, Thus shall we encourage
them, and give aid to them; and it shall cost us nothing:
and after this they will be more ashamed to submit them
selves unto the law which they have broken, and to the
rulers which they have defied.
33. And the nobles and the merchants of that land,
which aforetime had cursed and reviled the Tshivulree and
the Phiretahs, and had imputed the deeds which were
theirs only unto all the men of Unculpsalm, said Amen,
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
27
34. And the merchants of Jonbool sold the Phiretas
merchandise, and the armorers made them arms, and the
ship-men builded them ships, swift and mighty, wherewith
to destroy the ships of the men of the North. For they
said, Thus shall we be avenged, and turn, also every man,
an honest penny. State-craft and business shall prosper
together, and profit shall go hand in hand with pleasure.
35. And thus was the rebellion strengthened in the land
of Unculpsalm; so that although the armies of Unculpsalm
drove the men of the South out of much country where
they had set up their banner®, and captured their chief
cities, and held all that they had taken; yet after two years
were not their armies scattered qr destroyed, or their ships
which the men of Johnbobl had builded for them, driven
from the sea.
, r<
CHAPTER Vt.
1 Abraham and his Counsellors not wise in their generation.
6 Which is well pleasing tocertain Pimmfchrats. 10 Who
seek to work confusion. 12 And to compromise themselves
unto the Phiretahs. 13 And do compromise themselves unto
the Ambassador of Joribool. 16 Who is crafty and tumeth
neither to the right ri&r to thowrohg. 17 The wrath of the
men of the North. 21 The
of Peace Men. 25 The
House of Hiram the P^blica/n. 26 A Woman of the
Phiretahs. 28 Samuel Seeketh her and ministereth unto
her. 30 Abraham ministOreth ' occasion unto the Peace
men. They have a Martyr.
; 1. Now Abraham was honest; but he was not wise in
his generation.
2. Likewise also of the chief counsellors that he ap
pointed, that one that was counsellor for the war wrought
only mischief and confusion; even so that Abraham, who
�28
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
was long-suffering and slow to anger, would sometimes
put down his foot in wrath.
3. Now Abraham’s foot was heavy, but his head was
light, and his knees were feeble. So his foot came down
in the wrong place or at the wrong time, or else it con
tinued not down until the end was accomplished.
4. Wherefore he prevailed not. And he was called
Abraham the well meaning. And men pitied him.
5. And Abraham and his counsellors should have ruled
with a firm hand and a mighty arm, and have bound the
land together with bands of steel; and have smitten down
the strong and set at naught the proud, and been gracious
unto the feeble. But they wavered, and shrank from the
voice of threatening, both in their own land and in the
land of Jonbool.
6. And this was well pleasing unto certain men of the
Dimmichrats. For they said in their hearts, If this nation
can be saved by the rule of the Dimmichrats of our faction,
let it be saved; but if not, let it perish, and let us rule in
our own provinces.
7. But they said not this openly; for they feared the
people.
8. For in all this time the hearts of the men of the
North failed not, neither did they alter in their wicked
purpose to preserve their nation from destruction.
9. And of the Dimmichrats it was only they who were
faithful to their masters the Tschivulree and the Phiretahs,
and who were meek and lowly, and who sought to com
promise unto them, and crawl on their bellies before
them, which was well fitting for them to do, and to say
unto them, What would our masters have ? and what shall
their servants do, that they may be gracious unto their
servants, and allow them a little share in the ruling of this
land?—it was these only among the Dimmichrats who
were well pleased because Abraham and his counsellors
prevailed not.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
29
10. And these men held not up the hands of Abraham
their ruler, but sought occasion to prevent his purposes
and to bring his counsels to confusion, and his doings to
naught.
11. And when Abraham’s foot came down in the wrong
place, or continued not down until the end was accom
plished, and men’s hearts were sick with disappointment,
they sought to turn them in favor of Jeph the Repudiator
and his counsellors.
12. And they said, Let us not have war with our mas
ters the Tshivulree and the Phiretahs; but let us com
promise unto them, and crawl on our bellies before them,
even as we did aforetime; for it is meet and right and a
pleasant thing to be humble.
13. And they sent messengers unto the Tshivulree, and
the Phiretahs, saying these th«ihgsf> and their scribes wrote
them in books by night and sent them out unto the people
by day. But the Tshivulree and the Phiretahs spurned
them; for now that they could no more use them, they
looked at them with loathing.
14. Likewise also some of them went privily to the am
bassador of the land of Jonbool, even that land which
sought the destruction of the nation of Unculpsalm.
15. And they said unto him, Let u!s take counsel together
that we may bring about this great end, the ceasing of the
war without the putting down of the rebellion.
16. But he was crafty and answered them nothing.
And he wrote letters unto the rulers of hiS land, saying, I
will watch faithfully, and I will turn aside neither to the
right nor to the wrong, going which way it may be need
ful, if it leadeth to our profit. So shall I show myself wor
thy to be a ruler in the land of Jonbool.
17. Now when this letter was noised abroad in the land
of Unculpsalm, the men of the north were incensed, and
the fire of their anger was hot against the Dimmichrats
that called themselves Peace men. For upon this matter
�30
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
tiie men of Belial, and the Dimmichrats which were not
Peace men* and the Pahdees were of one mind.
18. And they said, Who is it that hath dared thus to
humble this nation? Let him come out before us. And
no man answered.
19. For they whieh had done it saw that they could not
stand before the people and live. Yet still they said in
their hearts, If this nation can be saved by the rule of the
Dimmichrats of our faction, let it be saved ; but if not, let
it perish, and let us rule in our own provinces. For now
they had but one thought; not how the rebellious Tshivulree and Phiretahs might be subdued and compelled again
to their obedience, but how they might again rule the land
and divide the spoil, and have again their everlasting
Niggah.
20. Whereof they cried aloud for war, but labored in
secret to bring the war to naught, and turn the minds
of the people to peace, that they might compromise unto
the Phiretahs as they did aforetime. And they watched
for their occasion.
21. Now the chiefs of this sect in Gotham were these:
22. Phernandiwud, who had been chief ruler of the city,
and Benjamin his brother; James the scribe, which knew
nothing, and Erastus his brother; Samuel, who was rich in
butter; Hiram the publican, who was also a sinner, and
Elijah, who smelled the battle afar in the tents of
Tamnee; Cyrus (not he that was taught to ride, to shoot
the bow, and to speak the truth, yet did this Cyrus shoot
with a longer bow than the other); Primus the scribe,
whose beard was like Aaron’s, and who dwelt among the
merchants; Samuel, who made the lightnings of heaven
his messengers; Ker Tiss, who wrote concerning the
Great Covenant; and one who dwelt in the elbows of the
Min cio, and destroyed the heerts of women; Isaiah, who
was a captain of the Hammerites; Samuel whose surname
was Brinnzmaid, and whose fathers ate hasty-pudding; and
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
31
Augustus the money-changer, who aforetime was called
Schomberg.
23. Now the others were Gentiles, but Augustus was
of the circumcision.
24. And all these men served diligently their master,
who was Jeph the Repudiator. And many of them were
Scribes, but all of them Were Pharisees; for they held to
the letter of the law, but knew not its spirit. And they
taught, like them of old, concerning th© Sabbath, that the
nation was made for th® Great Covenant, and not the
Great Covenant for the nation.
25. And the inn of Hiram, which before the war began
1 in-the land of Unculpsalm had been filled with Tshivulree
and Phiretahs, and with Plunkees compromising them
selves unto their masters- the Phiretahs, and crawling upon
their bellies before them, became now the chief place of
resort for them that still served the Tshivulree and labored
to prosper1 the rebellion. There they gathered themselves
together and plotted in secret how they might ensnare the
rulers of Unculpsalm, and rejoiced openly when the banner
of the Phiretahs prevailed against the] banner of Uncul
psalm. So did the inn of Hiram become the synagogue
-of rebellion.
26. And there came a woman'of the Phiretahs into Go
tham. And she was married); yet was her husband not
with her. And she was comely and fair to look upon.
27. And it was told unto the rulers of Unculpsalm, Be
hold, this woman of the Phiretahs cometh to spy out the
nakedness of the land.. Wherefore the rulers sent a mes
sage unto Ken Edee, chief of the Watchmen of Gotham,
that he should take her and put her in ward. And he did
so.
28. Now when Samuel, whose surname was Brinnzmaid,
heard that Ken Edee had taken a woman of the Ph iretabs
and put her in ward, he went to her; and when he saw
that her husband was not with her, and that she was comely
�32
THE NEW GOSPEL OK PEACE.
and fair to look upon, and that she had come to spy out
the nakedness of the land, he succored her and ministeredunto her. And he caused Ken Edee to take her out of
ward; and when he had kept her in Gotham for awhile,,
that she might be comforted and see the nakedness of the
land, he sent her back into the land of Tshivulree.
29. So all these men, and many others which followed
them, did nothing else night and day but strive to get the
land again into the hands of their faction that they might
serve their master Jeph the Repudiator, and compromise,
unto him, and preserve their everlasting Niggah.
30. Now while they were waiting their occasion, Abra
ham himself ministered it unto them. For one of the
captains in the army of Unculpsalm, took Clement, a law
giver, because he had said that Abraham was a usurper,
and a tyrant, in that he resisted Jeph the Repudiator, and
had sought to diminish the armies of Unculpsalm, and cast
him into prison; and to a scribe which did likewise, the
captain sent armed men that stood over him with drawn
swords, saying, Ye shall no longer thus stir up the people
to sedition.
31. And immediately the chief men of the Dimmicrats
throughout the land raised a great uproar, for they said,
Now cometh our opportunity.
32. For there was a law in the land of Unculpsalm that
every man might speak and write freely all the promptings
of his heart, so that he slandered not his neighbor, and
that no man should be cast into prison save by a judge,
when he had been condemned by twelve good men of his
province. And the people of the land of Unculpsalm
prized this law above all their other laws; and it was a
part of the Great Covenant and of the Great Charter of
the liberties of that people.
33. But it was written in the Great Covenant that in
times of sedition, privy conspiracy, and rebellion this law
should cease and be of no effect; for the safety of the
nation.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
3a
34. Now the leaders of the Dimmichrats, who were wise
in their generation, and who sought first to get power,
into their own hands, and afterwards the salvation of the
nation, said among themselves, Lo, Abraham has given us
a martyr; and it is better than if he had given the armies
of Unculpsalm a victory. Now, therefore, let us bewail
the woes of Clement and the violence to the Great Cove
nant and the ancient Charter: and we will declare that it
is to preserve this nation from destruction, and we shall
regain the hearts of this people.
35. And they did so. And the people forgat the peril
of the land, and how it was in more danger from traitors
that were within than from foes that were without; and
they forgat also the provision of the Great Covenant
against such perils; and there was a great commotion’.
36. And Abraham said, L'et not Clement be kept in
prison ; but let him be sent among the Phiretahs; for they
are his friends, and he is'our enemy; and let the scribe
continue his writing. And it was done. So Clement be
came a martyr; and the scribe hardened his heart and
was tenfold more the servant of the Phiretahs than before.
■ For he said, Abraham feareth the Dimmichrats, and even
the men of Belial fear them also, and the spirit Bak Bohn
is again cast out of them.
CHAPTER VII.
1 Phernandiwud summoneth liis disciples to hear the New Gospel
of Peace at the Hall of Peter the Barrelmaker. 8 Who came
not to the assembly. 9 And why. 13 Who came. 17 Pher
nandiwud proclaimeth the New Gospel of Peace. 20 The Hit
tites and Hammerites are well pleased. 22 But have groanings
about the freedom of the Niggah. 25 Phernandiwud showeth
that there is no right but Peace and Everlasting Niggah. 26
And Free Speech. 32 Meekness of Phernandiwud. 33 And
�34
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
of the Hittites and the Hammerites. 38 Isaiah telleth of a
ministration of Peace. 45 The Neu Gospel of Peace spreadeth beyond the border of Masunandicsun.
1. Now Phernandiwud saw that his time was come.
2. And he said unto his familiars and to them which did
his bidding, (for he had a great following in Gotham),
Behold, the spirit of peace hath descended upon me; and
I go forth to declare the mystery of a new gospel of peace,
a gospel of great gain, unto me first, and afterward unto
the Dimmichrats. And I shall reward them who are
faithful unto me.
3. Go now therefore and summon the Dimmichrats who
serve Jeph the Repudiator and the Phiretahs in Gotham.
4. James the scribe and Erastus his brother, who know
nothing, and my brother Benjamin, who knoweth some
things; Samuel, who is rich in butter, Hiram the publican;
Elijah, who smelleth the battle afar off; Cyrus who shooteth with a longer bow than the first Cyrus; Primus, who
dwelleth among the merchants; Ker Tiss, of the Great
Covenant; Isaiah, captain of the Hammerites; Samuel,
who sendeth the lightning on his errand, and the other
Samuel, whose surname is Brinnzmaid; and Augustus,
the money-changer.
5. And say unto them, Gather yourselves together, ye
and your following, every man of you in the hall of Peter
who is called the barrel-maker, and in the open spaee
round about, that ye may hear from my lips the new
gospel of peace.
6. (Now this Peter made the substance whereby one
thing sticketh unto another thing. Wherefore he was for
union; and he called the hall which he had builded, the
Union; (for he said, Thus shall I stick this nation to
gether,) but the people called it after his own name. And
he was rich and he offended no man. Now in the land of
Unculpsalm, whosoever was rich and offended no man, be-
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
35.
came one of the chief men of his place, and of his country.
Moreover, Peter gave of his substance unto the people.
And this was he who, at a feast given unto the Prince of
the land of Jonbool, clapped the Prince upon the
shoulder and said unto him, My lord the Prince shall
dance next with my daughter. For he was a gracious
man and a courteous, and he knew that his daughter was
comely.)
7. And Phernandiwud looked for the assembling of the
men which he had summoned, they and their following, at
the hall of Peter the Ba®el-make®, and the space round
about.
8. But these men came n®t: James the scribe, and
Erastus his brother; Samuel, whose sirname is Brinnzmaid
and the other Samuel; Benjamin the brother of Phernan
diwud, and Elijah of Tamunee; Hiram the publican, and
Cyrus, Primus, and Augustus the money-changer, and
their following.
9. For they said within^ themselves, This gospel of
peace will be an offence untpL the people, who are perverse
in their hearts, and who love the banner of Unculpsalm,
and have respect unto the rulers chosen according to the
Great Covenant, even although the men be not to their
liking, and who are foolishly bent on destroying the armies
and the power of them who would destroy the nation.
10. Wherefore we will not be ;seen listening to the gos
pel of peace. For it shall be better for us to cry out for
war, and meanwhile to hinder the war in secret, and to
seek every occasion to bring the rulers of our country to
scorn and derision in the time of her trial, and to aid J eph
the Repudiator, and his spies, and his emissaries, and to
work confusion in the land.
11. For so shall the people be weary of their rulers, and
bewildered with our confusion; and they shall trust us,
and turn unto us in their desolation, and say, Verily, theseare men, and make us rulers of the land.
�36
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
IS. Then will we compromise ourselves again unto our
masters the Tshivulree and the Phiretahs, as it is meet, and
right, and pleasant for us to do; and we shall find yet
deeper dust wherein to crawl before them; and we shall
loosen the bonds of these provinces, and make each gov
ernor of a province thereof a little satrap, but great in
his own eyes and in the eyes of the Phlunkees, which will
surround him, that he may defy the chief ruler of the land;
and we shall divide the spoil.
13. But these men came to the hall of Peter the barrel-maker
to hear Phernandiwud declare the new gospel of peace.
14. Din Ninny, who was chief ruler of the assembly,
and who directed all the doings thereof; Isaiah, who was
captain of the Hammerites; and many others of the sect of
Smalphri among the Dimmichrats.
15. And with them there came a great multitude of the
Hittites and the Hammerites, and of the Dedrabitz from
Koubae beyond Boueree, and the dwellers in Phyvpintz,
which is nigh unto the tombs where they buried Juz Tiss.
(Now Juz Tiss was not of kin unto that Ker Tiss who
wrote of the Great Covenant), and in Makkurilvil, and in
the country as thou goest by the shore of the river on the
East, unto Shyppyardz.
.16. And all these men gathered themselves together,
fiercely bent upon peace. And they filled the hall of Peter
the Barrel-maker, and the open space round about.
17. And when Phernandiwud stood up and beckoned
unto them they shouted for about the space of half an hour.
For they remembered what he had done for them afore
time : and they looked for a ministration of the gospel of
peace, such as there had been between the watchmen of
Phernandiwud and those which had been appointed by
the governor and rulers of the province. And they said
within themselves, Now shall we again break the heads
of the watchmen of Ken Edee • and there shall be peace
again in the land.
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
37
18. And Phemandiwud said unto them, Hearken, O
men of Gotham! I come before you this day preaching a
new gospel of peace. Peace on earth and good-will to
men. Peace on earth, that I and my faithful followers
may get what is due unto us, and good-will unto men who
are of our persuasion, among the Dimmichrats.
19. For there be Dimmichrats, yea, verily, even Pahdees,
who are not of our persuasion and who enter not into our
congregation. Let them be accursed.
20. And all the people said, Hi! hi! For such is the
manner of the Hittites and the Hammerites of Gotham
when they are well pleased.
21. And again Phernandiwud opened his mouth and
said, 0, my brethren, the day of calamity cometh upon the
land of Unculpsalm, and there is no man able to help.
Therefore have I come hither that I may save this nation.
No man raiseth the banner of peace. Therefore will I
raise it, that war and hate, which are the children of Satan,
may be at an end, except for the Dimmichrats which are
not of our persuasion, arid the men of Belial which preach
freedom unto the Niggah.; Them let us hate with a
perfect hatred, and upon them let’us make war without
ceasing.
’ •
;■
■
22. (And when the Hittites and Hammerites heard of
liberty to the Niggah, they all groaned with an exceeding
loud groan, as it were if each man had been seized with
pangs of griping in his bowels1. For to hear of freedom to
the Niggah is gall and wormwood to the Hittites and the
Hammerites.)
23. Then said Fernandiwud, Through the pride of
their hearts, and the vanity and wickedness of their imagi
nations, the rulers of this land have sinned and done
wickedly in that they have not allowed the Tshivulree and
kthe Phiretahs to destroy this nation without making war
upon it.
24. For the land of Unculpsalm hath no right to a go-
�38
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
vemment, neither have the people of Unculpsalm any right
to be a nation. Neither is the Great Covenant a covenant
to be kept, except by the men of each province, so long as
it is pleasing in their eyes.
25. But these only are right, Peace and the everlasting
Niggah. Such peace as we had aforetime, ere the ac
cursed spirit Bak Bohn took possession of this people.
Peace which will enable our brethren of the South to eat,
their bread in the sweat of another’s face; to rob the,
laborer of his hire; to oppress the weak, and set their foot
upon the neck of the lowly; to beat their Niggahs with
many stripeb, to hunt them with dogs, and to slay them
to take their women for concubines, and to beget of them
sons and daughters; and to sell from the mother the fruit
of her womb and the nursling of her bosom; to make mer
chandise of the fruit of their own loins, and to sell their
own flesh and blood into bondage forever.
27. Peace, my brethren, which will also restore our right
of free speech according to the Great Covenant; of which
we have been robbed by the rulers of this land, that they
may wage their wicked war upon the Phiretahs.
28. For, O men of Gotham, ye see this day how your
rulers oppress you, and will allow no man to speak evil of
them, that they may wage this war without let or hinderance; and that all men’s mouths are shut by fear of the
gallows or the dungeon, who will not prophesy smooth
things of their damnable doings, and cover up their wick
edness and glorify their abominations.
29. Therefore I declare unto you that we must have the
peace, the peace which ensueth from free speech. So that
when men of Belial seek to turn the hearts of the men of
the South to setting their bondsmen free, and taking away
from us our everlasting Niggah, the Phiretahs may seize
upon them, and beat them with many stripes, and hang
them upon trees, and roast them with fire, and pour hot
pitch upon them, and ride them upon sharp beams very
�THE NEW GOSPEL OE PEACE,
39
■grievous to bestride. Peace and free speech, such as there
was on the day when Prestenbruux smote down Charles
the Summoner, and beat him until he was nigh unto
■death.
30. Let this Peace hover over the land, scattering balm
from her outstretching wings. Balm for the wounded
souls of the Tshivulree and the Phiretahs; balm for the
wounds which the Dimmichratic brethren have inflicted on
each other; balm for my bruised spirit and defrauded ex
pectations.
31. Let this peace come to us, my brethren, and the lion
of the South and the lamb of the North shall lie down
together, and there shall no more be contention between
them; for the lamb shall be inside of the lion.
32. Let us then be lambs, 0 men of Gotham! Yea,
let us be meek as lambs. Por'ft is written that the meek
shall inherit the earth.
33. Then the Hittites and the Hamm erites again cried
out Hi! hi! after their fashion; and in a twinkling many
of them took an oath that ■ they were the meek, and that
they should inherit the earth.
34. Then Phernandiwud said, All now is well with us,
my brethren, and with the land of Unculpsalm. Peace
and free-speech shall prevail among us now and forever.
35. Then the Hittites and the Hammerifes shouted with
a great shout, and they cldfeched’’their fist® and said, God
do so to us and more also, if we break not every man his
head which saith there shall n^henceforth be peace and
free-speech throughout th^lstnd!. ■
36. And no man answered. So they said, Lo there is
peace.
B7. And Phernandiwud said these things many times.
38. Now when Phernandiwud had made an end of
speaking unto the people, there arose Isaiah, he who was
captain of a band of the Hammerites, and which was one
of the chief disciples of Phernandiwud. And he said,
�40
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
39. Shall there not be peace, my brethren ? Remember
ye not the time when Philip, the priest of Beelzebub came
here preaching deliverence to the captive and the setting
at liberty even of the Niggah? and how he entered into the
Tabernacle and gathered unto him iniquitous men, men of
Belial who hearkened unto him, and believed in him ?
40. And remember ye not how I, with you Hammerites,
who break the heads of all them who set themselves
against you, and you, 0 Hittites, who hit from the shoulder,
went into the Tabernacle and broke up their congregation
and scattered their assembly ?
41. And I knocked. down Philip, and dragged him out
of the pulpit wherein he was speaking, and drave him out
of the Tabernacle ?
42. Yea, verily, I knocked him down; for I am a man
of peace; and dragged him out of his pulpit and drave him
forth of the Tabernacle; for I love free speech.
43. Then the Hittites and the Hammerites and the Dim
michrats which had joined themselves unto the faction of
Jeph the Repudiator, burst out into a great shouting. And
for the space of about an hour they did nothing but cry
Peace and Free Speech, and death unto him that sayeth to
the contrary.
44. And when they were weary of shouting, they went
each man unto his own home.
45. And the new gospel of peace spread abroad, and
prevailed mightily.
46. And it went throughout all the land of Unculpsalmeven beyond the border of Masunandicsun.
47. So that in about ten days the chief captain of the
Tshivulree, whose name was Robbutleeh (he who had
forced Litulmak, who was surnamed the Unready, to
change his base, and sent Joseph, whose surname showeth
that it was not he which fled from the wife of Potiphar,
back from whence he came), took an army of the Phiretahs
and marched into two of the provinces of the land of
�THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
41
Unculspalm, proclaiming the new gospel of peace at the
point of the sword.
48. And he laid parts of those provinces waste with fire,
and he destroyed the bridges that were over the rivers,
and carried off their horses, and their corn and their cattle;
and put all them that resisted the new gospel of peace to
the sword.
49. So the people began to understand- the mystery of
the new gospel; and they glorified it; and they said, yet a
little while, and the Niggah shall be restored to his bon
dage, and the Tshivulree, and the Phiretahs shall be our
masters, and peace shall rule the land with a rod of iron,
and we shall compromise ourselves for ever. And there
was great rejoicing.
50. Now I, even I, Benjamin the scribe, the brother of
Phernandiwud, have written these things, not of my own
will, or of the promptings of my own heart, for the truth
is not in me. But forasmuch as the spirit of prophecy
hath descended upon me, like Balaam, the son of Beor, I
have uttered the innermost thoughts of my heart in mine
own despite, and I have written the mystery of the new
gospel of peace.
51. And to few shall it be given to comprehend this
mystery.
52. And the acts of Phernandiwud, whose walk was
slantindicular, and of his disciples, after the proclamation
of the new gospel of peace, and of James the scribe, and
of Erastus his brother, and of Samuel who is rich in
butter, and Samuel who sendeth the lightning whither he
will, and Hiram the publican, and that other Samuel, who
ministered unto the Phiretah woman : and of Elijah, who
smelleth the battle afar off in the tents of Tamunee; and
of Cyrus, and Primus, and Kerr Tiss, and Isaiah of the
Hammerites, which were Gentiles; and of Augustus, the
money-changer, which was of the circumcision, and of the
other Pharisees and Phlunkees, shall not I, Benjamin the
�42
THE NEW GOSPEL OF PEACE.
scribe, write them in a book ? and they shall be spread
abroad in all lands for the enlightening of all nations.
■’t
Abel Heywood, Printer, Oldham Street, Manchester.^
���
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 new gospel of peace according to St. Benjamin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
White, Richard Grant [1821-1885.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Manchester; London
Collation: 42 p. : ill. (accompanying fold-out black and white illustration) ; 19 cm.
Notes: A satire on American politics. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The author is not named on the title page. Date of publication from KVK. Accompanying fold-out black and white illustration titled 'What the Peace Party wishes the North to do'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Abel Heywoord; Bacon & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1877]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5228
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 new gospel of peace according to St. Benjamin), 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
USA
Politics
Conway Tracts
Satire
United States-Politics and Government
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/a315f8088dbef9293be65e0d2583cdff.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=PlAtFuC0Msj58GLCWNydsJYtLmW5GXyRoCfeVTbXD924dnIa3GEjOh9aaMBq4e6PpHz4ZCFECrpTzPQSxBwSqliSIuh2SFYbGiWKyNvIazEzqtYphgNyracUvJNeXYM8lo5CISAdnSYENgOT6S6HSRPGez6Mw8ZLnPcuJtMXZixf2GhrAg-%7EuQDLcQnWC-HsoBF62uQJY5U0bRhY1Cpfk9f8nnmE3E%7EcTQSBAPKEGNFoQCNnQOdFHlPWLLNo2L4BTGYpl9xYfxTEJPRZy0teprTcXULU1pNpLbKr%7EIo8ASwKklfVkfUSz6dRUp-iB3%7ElFCOTR6iUoJtmT2jV8GsUsQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
ac6ff5fd4e08f24e94ee8221fe5aca2a
PDF Text
Text
LEST WE FORGET
THE STORY OF THOMAS PAINE
AND THE NATION’S DEBT TO HIS
MEMORY by ELLA WHEELER WILCOX
PRICE, TEN CENTS
Published by
THOMAS PAINE
NATIONAL HISTORICAL
ASSOCIATION
W. H. HARVEY, Trea»urer
62 VESEY STREET, NEW YORK, N. Y.
�“The World it
My Country ;
To Do Good My
Religion."
—Thomas Paine.
��THOMAS PAINE
1737—1809
�WE FORGET
By
ELLA WHEELER WILCOX
PRINTED
AT THE ROYCROFT SHOP, WHICH
IS IN EAST AURORA, ERIE
COUNTY, N. Y.
��LEST WE FORGET
By Ella Wheeler Wilcox
VERY American
should know the
story of Thomas
Paine’s life. Unfor
tunately, however,
only a comparatively small
number of our immense popu
lation are acquainted with his
remarkable career, and but
few realize the great debt of
gratitude that we all owe this
great libertarian’s memory.
3
�LEST WE FORGET
How many Americans know that
to Thomas Paine’s writings, more
than to any other factor, we owe
our independence as the United
States of America? How many
of us know that the very name,
“ United States of America,”
was coined by Thomas Paine
and first used by him ? All of us
should know it.
Thomas Paine was one of the
founders of the United States of
America ; was, in fact, the prime
mover in the establishment of
4
�LEST WE FORGET
the great American republic.
Had it not been for his great
efforts in liberty’s behalf, it is
quite as likely as not that to this
very day this land would have
remained under British rule.
Thomas Paine wrote and pub
lished in January, Seventeen
Hundred Seventy-six, the earli
est plea for American indepen
dence. This was his pamphlet
entitled, Common Sense. Pre
vious to the appearance of
Paine’s masterly argument urg5
�LEST WE FORGET
ing immediate separation and
resistance, the American Colo
nists, notwithstanding the impo
sitions of Great Britain (unbear
able taxations, etc.), had thought
only of supplications and peti
tions to George the Third for
relief. Despite the British
monarch’s long-continued obdu
racy and the fact that each new
oppression was followed by
another and that he turned a
deaf ear to all appeals, the Colo
nists still hoped on, with never a
6
�LEST WE FORGET
thought of rebellion. Even Wash
ington, at this time, expressed
loyalty to the king.
Like a thunderbolt from the sky
came Paine’s magnificent argu
ment for liberty. It electrified
the people, and its stirring words
swept like wildfire through the
country. No pamphlet ever
written sold in such vast num
bers, nor did any ever before or
since produce such marvelous
results. Paine donated all the
financial proceeds of the pam7
�LEST WE FORGET
phlet to the cause of liberty (as
he did with all of his other works).
C Washington, now converted,
wrote to his friends in praise of
Common Sense, asserting that
Paine’s words were “ sound doc
trine and unanswerable reason
ing.” Jefferson, John Adams,
Franklin, Madison, all the great
statesmen of the time, wrote
praisefully of Paine’s “ flaming
arguments.”
In July, six months after Com
mon Sense had awakened the
8
�LEST WE FORGET
people, the Declaration of Inde
pendence, embracing the chief
arguments of Paine’s great
pamphlet, and much of its actual
wording, was signed by the com
mittee of patriots in Philadel
phia
The great Revolution com
menced at once. The oppressed
Colonists took up arms at a
great disadvantage, by reason
of lack of food, clothes, money
and munitions of war; but,
inspired by the forceful message
9
�LEST WE FORGET
of Common Sense, they fought
bravely and well. When Winter
set in, however, the ill-clad,
poorly-nourished little army had
been greatly reduced in numbers
by desertions from its ranks.
Many of the soldiers were shoe
less and left bloody footprints
on the snow-covered line of
march. All were but half-hearted
at this time and many utterly
discouraged. Washington wrote
most apprehensively concerning
the situation to the Congress
10
�LEST WE FORGET
Paine, in the meantime (himself
a soldier, with General Greene’s
army on the retreat from Fort
Lee, New Jersey, to Newark),
realizing the necessity of at once
instilling renewed hope and cour
age in the soldiers if the cause of
liberty were to be saved, wrote
by campfire at night the first
number of his soul-stirring Crisis,
commencing with the words :
“ These are the times that try
men’s souls. The summer soldier
and the sunshine patriot will, in
11
�LEST WE FORGET
this crisis, shrink from the ser
vice of their country, but he that
stands it now deserves the love
and thanks of man and woman.
Tyranny, like Hell, is not easily
conquered; yet we have this
consolation with us, that the
harder the conflict, the more
glorious the triumph. What we
obtain too cheap we esteem too
lightly: it is dearness only that
gives everything its value
Heaven knows how to put a
proper price upon its goods ; and
12
�LEST WE FORGET
it would be strange indeed if so
celestial an article as freedom
should not be highly rated.”
Washington ordered the Crisis
read aloud to every regiment of
the army. The effect was magical.
Hope was renewed in every
breast. Deserters returned to the
ranks. Men who had half-heart
edly withheld from joining the
patriot army took courage from
Paine’s thrilling words and
shouldered muskets with the
rest. The great cause, tottering
13
�LEST WE FORGET
on the brink of dissolution, was
saved. Paine’s Crisis did it
Following the first number of
the Crisis came others—thirteen
in all—the last commencing with
the words:
“ The times that tried men’s
souls are over.”
Paine was not only a great
author and statesman, but he
was distinctly a pioneer, an
originator, an inventor and cre
ator. To him we are indebted for
many of the world’s greatest ideas
14
�LEST WE FORGET
and most important reforms.
It was Paine who first proposed
the abolition of negro slavery;
Paine was the first to suggest
arbitration and international
peace; Paine originally proposed
old-age pensions.
These are a few of the other
great ideas he fathered: He first
suggested international copy
right ; first proposed the educa
tion of children of the poor at
public expense; first suggested a
great republic of all the nations
15
�LEST WE FORGET
of the world; first proposed
“ the land for the people ” ; first
suggested “ the religion of
humanity ” ; first proposed and
first wrote the words “ United
States of America ”; first sug
gested protection for dumb ani
mals ; first suggested justice to
women ; first proposed the pur
chase of the Louisiana territory;
first suggested the Federal Union
of States.
Much, much more might be told
of this wonderful man, but this
16
�LEST WE FORGET
is merely a little booklet, not a
biographical volume.
For a century the world has
ignored this brilliant mind. In
deed, Paine’s name has been
branded by bigots and fanatics
with all imaginable obloquy
He was called an atheist, a FreeThinker, a blasphemer, simply
because he could not believe in
some old traditions which today
are known to be allegorical, and
which few intelligent minds
regard seriously.
17
�LEST WE FORGET
Some of the world’s greatest men
have paid tributes of praise to
Thomas Paine, and their testi
mony is worth recording.
Napoleon said in toasting him at
a banquet, “ Every city in the
world should erect a gold statue
to you.”
General Andrew Jackson, the
“ Hero of New Orleans,” and
the seventh President of the
United States, said to the vener
able philanthropist, Judge Herttell, of New York, upon the
18
�LEST WE FORGET
latter proposing the erection of a
suitable monument to Thomas
Paine:
“ Thomas Paine needs no mon
ument made by hands; he has
erected himself a monument in
the hearts of all lovers of liberty.
The Rights of Man will be more
enduring than all the piles of
marble and granite man can
erect.”
George Washington, first Presi
dent of this great Republic, in a
letter to Thomas Paine, inviting
19
�LEST WE FORGET
that author and patriot to par
take with him, at Rocky-Hill,
wrote:
“ Your presence may remind
Congress of your past services
to this country, and if it is in my
power to impress them, com
mand my best exertions with
freedom, as they will be rendered
cheerfully, by one who enter
tains a lively sense of the impor
tance of your works.”
Major-General Charles Lee, of
the American Revolutionary
20
�LEST WE FORGET
Army, speaking of the wonderful
effects of Paine’s writings, said
that “ he burst forth on the
world like Jove in thunder ! ” ^
John Adams said that Lee used
to speak of Paine as “ the man
with genius in his eyes.”
Joel Barlow, poet, patriot and
statesman, and an intimate
friend of Paine, wrote of him as
follows:
“ He was one of the most benev
olent and disinterested of man
kind, endowed with the clearest
21
�LEST WE FORGET
perception, an uncommon share
of original genius, and the great
est depth of thought.
“ He ought to be ranked among
the brightest and undeviating
luminaries of the age in which he
lived
“Asa visiting acquaintance and
a literary friend, he was one of
the most instructive men I ever
have known. He had a surprising
memory and a brilliant fancy.
His mind was a storehouse of
facts and useful observations.
22
�LEST WE FORGET
He was full of lively anecdote,
and ingenious, original, pertinent
remark upon almost every sub
ject
“ He was always charitable to
the poor beyond his means, a
sure protector and a friend to all
Americans in distress that he
found in foreign countries: and
he had frequent occasion to
exert his influence in protecting
them during the Revolution in
France. His writings will answer
for his patriotism.”
23
�LEST WE FORGET
Thomas Clio Rickman, author,
poet, biographer, writing of
Paine, said:
“Why seek occasions, surly
critics and detractors, to mal
treat and misrepresent Mr.
Paine? He was mild, unoffend
ing, sincere, gentle, humble and
unassuming; his talents were
soaring, acute, profound, exten
sive and original; and he pos
sessed that charity which covers
a multitude of sins.”
Thomas Jefferson, third Presi24
�LEST WE FORGET
dent of the United States and
co-author with Thomas Paine
of the famous Declaration of
Independence, wrote to Paine
in Eighteen Hundred One, ten
dering him a passage to the
United States, from France, in
a national vessel. Jefferson’s
appreciation of Paine may be
noted in this paragraph of his
letter:
“ I am in hopes you will find us
returned generally to sentiments
worthy of former times. In these
25
�LEST WE FORGET
it will be your glory to have
steadily labored, and with as
much effect as any man living.
That you may long live to con
tinue your useful labors, and to
reap the reward of the thankful
ness of nations, is my sincere
prayer.”
sw
James Monroe, fifth President
of the United States, in a letter
to Thomas Paine, wrote as fol
lows :
“It is not necessary for me to
tell you how much all your
26
�LEST WE FORGET
countrymen—I speak of the
great mass of the people—are
interested in your welfare. They
have not forgotten the history
of their own Revolution, and the
difficult scenes through which
they have passed; nor do they
review its several stages without
reviving in their bosoms a due
sensibility of the merits of those
who served them in that great
and arduous conflict. The crime
of ingratitude has not yet stained,
and I hope never will stain, our
27
�LEST WE FORGET
national character. You are con
sidered by them as not only
having rendered important ser
vices in our own Revolution, but
as being, on a more extensive
scale, the friend of human rights,
and a distinguished and able
advocate in favor of public lib
erty. To the welfare of Thomas
Paine the Americans are not,
nor can they be, indifferent.”
Let us reiterate the hope ex
pressed by James Monroe, that
the crime of ingratitude shall
28
�LEST WE FORGET
never stain our national charac
ter. It is time indeed that the
world awakened to the merits of
Thomas Paine.
With the view of spreading the
light concerning Paine, the
Thomas Paine National Histor
ical Association was organized
and incorporated in New York
some years ago. Through the
efforts of this Association Thomas
Paine is at last coming into his
own. The Association intends
that Thomas Paine shall occupy
29
�LEST WE FORGET
that niche in the world’s Temple
of Fame where he properly
belongs, and to that end it bends
its every endeavor.
The Association has established
at New Rochelle, New York, in
the house that Paine built on
the great farm presented to him
by the State of New York in
recognition of his patriotic ser
vices, a Thomas Paine National
Museum. Admission is free. The
Association publishes pamphlets
and other literature from time
30
�LEST WE FORGET
to time on the subject of Thomas
Paine.
In the Thomas Paine National
Museum at New Rochelle are to
be seen relics of the great author,
rare first editions of his chief
works, rare portraits, etc., etc.
On January the Twenty-ninth,
Paine’s birthday, the Associa
tion holds its yearly dinner.
Every year, usually on Memo
rial Day, the Association has a
commemorative meeting in
Paine’s honor at the Paine
31
�LEST WE FORGET
Monument in New Rochelle.
The expenses of the Association
are defrayed by the receipts
from membership dues. The
officers receive no remuneration
for their services. The member
ship dues are only one dollar a
year (no initiation or other fees).
<[ The Association will gladly
send literature concerning the
organization and its work to
any one applying for it. Address :
W. H. Harvey, Treasurer, Sixtytwo Vesey Street, New York.
32
�THE most formidable
Weapon against errors
of every faind is Reason.
I have never used any
other and I trust I never
shall.
—Thomas Paine.
��Thomas Paine
National Historical
Association
W. M. van der WEYDE
President
7 West 103d Street
New York
W. H. HARVEY
Treasurer
62 Vesey Street
New York
EDWARD HENN
Secretary
334 East 51st Street
New York
�Certain I am that
when opinions are
free, either in matters
of government or relig
ion, truth will finally
and powerfully prevail.
—Thomas Paine.
-a
�
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
Lest we forget
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Wilcox, Ella Wheeler [1850-1919]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: East Aurora, NY
Collation: 32 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 14 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Title page printed in red and black. Red decorations at the top of each page. Rubricated letter on p.3. Date of publication from Library of Congress. Cover title: 'Lest we forget : the story of Thomas Paine and the nation's debt to his memory'. Printed at the Roycroft Workshop, East Aurora, N.Y.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Paine National Historical Association
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1914?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N695
Subject
The topic of the resource
Thomas Paine
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 (Lest we forget), 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
NSS
Statesmen-United States
Thomas Paine
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/475931c0d6b85d90da46c35334e2653f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=WN1XPe0ECJ69RK%7ExMZQoxMa3P4j71uM6X5Hbr3iyijlkFcSRzwg9uoJGL6pIb12YQdWs5HkV9oOELbxUqRq4a5CF47sxbdTIZyVtYRMN2p5VOsqLgStvbQJNBmj0HcqmeZALtjesIGR4UTE0Nm5mVKlDsyDVknsh7V41t3TqHpOaMoM0xyRbi%7E5GS4-Bl3usaMANe%7EHd4qNipOwSjlU82wvLP7TgQbnddS8hsJIoGD-kJ3o3vSKiW81s2beBbgF3vd0Wme6wtNooOKLRKAzc4347kfI8ae4lwZS%7ECm0Z-LPIlb9PVzmr%7Eu7nH5pJeUeg6hPLuPPkb-kYid-EHdBi%7Ew__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7ac5ae359b3b4154c7b53dc2923bd2ef
PDF Text
Text
N&tuu I o$5
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY
EXAMINED
FROM A RATIONALIST STANDPOINT.
BY
CHARLES WATTS.
“ To believe without evidence and demonstration is an act of ignorance
and folly.”—Volney.
(Issued for the Rationalist Press Committee.)
London:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET ST.
��PREFACE.
In the following pages there is no attempt to criticise all the alleged
evidences in favour of Christianity. The aim of the writer has been
to fairly examine the principal claims that have recently been put
forward on behalf of the orthodox faith. It is hoped that the exami
nation that has been made, and the facts given in these pages, may be
of some practical service to the young and earnest searchers for truth.
C. W.
�CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION
...
..
..
...
5
•••
THE NATURE AND VALUE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES
...
7
GOD AND RELIGION
...
...
•••
T4
THEISM AND OTHER
“ ISMS ” ...
•••
...
THE QUESTION OF REVELATION
MIRACLES
...
...
...
...
...
..
...
...
...
...
20
,
•••
23
29
THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTEROF CHRIST...
...
34
THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST
...
•••
42
...
•••
...
...
5°
63
...
THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
...
LIST OF BOOKS RECOMMENDED TO STUDENTS
�INTRODUCTION.
The purpose of the following unpretentious contribution to
the modern criticism of the claims of orthodox Christianity
is to present to the reader, from a Rationalistic standpoint,
a popular, brief, and impartial examination of the evidences
which are set forth in support of the supernatural and unique
character of the Christian religion. The object of the writer
has been to ascertain if there is sufficient reason to justify
the maintaining of the various positions that are now taken
by Christian exponents in the defence of their faith. The
nature of the evidence required for such a purpose, and the
different subjects to which it is applied, together with the
questions that are defended, are all duly considered.
We have taken the recently-published “ Handbook of
Christian Evidences,” by Dr. Alexander Stewart, Professor
of the Theological University of Aberdeen, as a basis for
our critical examination ; but we have not attempted to
reply in detail to all the positions laid down in his book.
We have preferred to give a general summary of the argu
ments that may be advanced against his conclusions, so that
those who read both treatises may be the better able to form
an accurate judgment on the various questions dealt with.
The “ Handbook ” is issued specially for the young, with the
expressed hope “ that it may be the means of strengthening
the faith of inquiring minds, at a time when the most sacred
truths are subjected to unsparing criticism.” The Professor
has stated his case calmly, and we trust it will be found that
we have been equally calm in presenting the Rationalistic
view. We desire that those who read the “Handbook”
should carefully peruse the following pages, and we hope that
its contents may strengthen the discriminating power of in
quiring minds at a time when all rational persons should be
“ ready always to give answer to every man that asketh them
a reason concerning the hope that is in them.”
�6
INTRODUCTION.
We sincerely hope that no believer in Christianity will
hesitate to read and to well ponder over what is here written.
If what we have stated be studied with an earnest desire to
arrive at truth, good results only will follow, for, as Bacon
says, it is “ error alone that suffers through conflict with
truth.” Principles unable to withstand the test of investiga
tion are destitute of what should be . one of their highest
recommendations. Belief without critical examination has
too often perpetuated error and fostered credulity. If
Christianity be fallacious, why should not its fallacy be
made known ? If, however, it be true, its truth will be the
more apparent as its claims are honestly investigated and
examined. Dr. Collyer observes, in his lectures on miracles,
that “ he who forbids you to reason on religious subjects, or
to apply your understanding to the investigation of revealed
truth, is insulting the character of God, as though his acts
shrank from scrutiny—is degrading his own powers, which
are best employed when they are in pursuit of such sublime
and interesting subjects.” Dr. Chalmers, the eminent
Scotch divine, also remarks: “We should separate the
exercises of the understanding from the tendencies, of the
heart. We should be prepared to follow, the light of
evidence, though it may lead us to conclusions the most
painful and melancholy. We should train our thoughts to
all the hardihood of abstract and unfeeling intelligence. We
should give up everything to the supremacy of argument,
and be able to renounce without a sigh all the tenderest
prepossessions of infancy the moment that truth demands
of us the sacrifice.”
�SECTION I.
THE NATURE AND VALUE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
It is reasonable to demand that definite evidence should be
furnished in support of extraordinary claims. Proof that
would be sufficient to win our belief in an ordinary matterof-fact occurrence would be inadequate to establish the truth
of those claims which are generally put forward on behalf
of Christianity. According to Webster, evidence is “ that
which elucidates and enables the mind to see truth ; proof
arising from our own perceptions by the senses, or from the
testimony of others, or from the induction of reason.”
Thus we have three methods through which evidence is
obtained, and we propose to consider if either one of them is
of any value in establishing the claims of Christian exponents.
1. Consciousness.—This method can only be of service
where truths are self-evident, which those claimed for Chris
tianity are not; therefore, if they can be corroborated at
all, it must be from external sources. If Christian truths
were self-evident, there would be no necessity for the repeated
efforts that are being constantly made to ascertain what the
truths are. Moreover, we find that different persons have
different conceptions of what Christianity really is, while
many fail to recognise in any way its alleged verities. It
appears to us that this would not be so if Christian claims
were based upon self-evident truths, for in that case they
would command ready assent from every honest inquirer.
2. Testimony.—This method, to be valuable as evidence,
should be thoroughly trustworthy, and ought to come to us
through channels that are, beyond all doubt, unimpeachable.
But, in reference to Christianity, the very opposite is the
fact. Its testimony is found in the New Testament, which,
as the Rev. Dr. Giles observes, contains “contradictions
that cannot be reconciled, imperfections that would greatly
�THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
detract from even admitted human compositions, and
erroneous principles of morality that would have hardly
found a place in the most incomplete systems of the philo
sophers of Greece and Rome ” (“ Christian Records,”
Preface, p. 7). John W. Haley, M.A., in his work on “An
Examination of the Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible,”
also states (pages 1 and 2) that “ no candid and intelligent
student of the Bible will deny that it contains numerous
discrepancies ; that its statements, taken prima facie, not in
frequently conflict with or contradict one another, may
safely be presumed. This fact has been more or less recog
nised by Christian scholars in all ages.” Haley further
alleges in the same work (page 2) : “ Moses Stuart (‘Critical
History and Defence of Old Testament Canon,’ page 193 :
revised edition, page 179), whose candour was commensurate
with his erudition, acknowledges that ‘ in our present copies
of the Scriptures there are some discrepancies between
different portions of them which no learning or ingenuity
can reconcile.’ To much the same effect Archbishop
Whately (‘ On Difficulties in Writings of St. Paul,’ essay 7,
section 4) observes : ‘ That the apparent contradictions of
Scripture are numerous....... is too notorious to need being
much insisted on.’ ” Now, we submit that testimony, coming
through such a doubtful channel as these eminent Christian
writers have stated the New Testament to be, cannot be
depended upon as furnishing reliable evidence in favour of
the extraordinary claims of Christianity.
3. The Induction of Reason.—The evidence to be derived
from this method in support of Christianity is exceedingly
slight. Reason gives no authority for the belief in the Fall
of Man, Original Sin, Vicarious Sacrifice, the Trinity, the
Miraculous Conception, Hell, and Eternal Torments. To
us it seems most unreasonable to expect that all mankind,
with their different trainings and varied mental capacities,
should be compelled to accept one particular faith under a
threat of the infliction of a most cruel and agonising penalty
(see Acts iv. 10-12 ; Mark xvi. 16 ; 2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9); to
believe that a good God would so have arranged matters
that the majority of his children would be doomed to eternal
perdition (see Matt. vii. 13, 14 ; Matt. xx. 16), and that God
should have ordained some men to condemnation and others
to dishonour before they were born (see Jude 4; Romans
�THE NATURE AND VALUE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
9
ix. 15-22). These are but a few specimens of a system
against which reason revolts. The only “ evidence ” that
can fairly be produced in favour of orthodox Christianity is
that of faith and revelation. It was by these agencies that
the greatest Bible blessings were said to have been obtained,
and through which it is reported that St. Paul himself was
convinced of its truth (see Hebrews xi. ; Gal. i. 12). Such
“evidence,” however, is impotent to have any practical
argumentative force to-day.
In dealing with Christian evidences, we must not overlook
the fact that the present age is one of unlimited inquiry,
which should neither be baffled nor arrested—a time when
many of the old landmarks of theology are being removed.
We have thus to make a new survey of the controversial
field, in order to ascertain our correct position. Indeed, we
are frequently cautioned by modern Christian writers that
we must attack the latest views put forth concerning their
faith. This appears to us a reasonable request, for no sensible
general would waste his powder upon forts that had been
abandoned by the enemy. But the fact that Christians have
been compelled to take up new positions in defence of their
faith is certainly no evidence in its favour, but rather the
opposite. Still, as they have forsaken their old citadels, it is
necessary to follow them to their new battle-ground. The
changes that have taken place in the advocacy of Christianity
are indeed remarkable, and they afford striking evidence
against the assumption of its being a God-sent religion.
Let us note a few of its principal mutations. At a period
not very remote the whole of the Bible was believed to be
the “ word of God ; ” Christians of to-day assert that only a
portion of the Scriptures should be so described. Hence
plenary inspiration has been given up, and we are now
informed that the Bible contains the “inspired word,” but that
the whole of it is not inspired. The question, however, here
arises, How are we to distinguish the inspired from the un
inspired ? Is the human to decide what is divine ? If yes,
the reason of man is superior to the revelation of God. If
no, by what evidence are we to judge what is truth and what
is error in the Bible? Miracles are now said to require
evidence to prove their truth, whereas in former times they
were cited to prove the truth of Christianity. Prophecy is
now thought to be the desire of the human heart, and is no
�IO
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
longer depended upon as the infallible foreteller of future
events. The fact that unbelievers have heroically faced
death in attestation of what they deemed to be true has
caused Christian exponents to give up the contention that
martyrdom proves the truth of that for which a man becomes
a martyr.
Now, surely it cannot reasonably be alleged that these
changes and modifications afford any evidence of the stability
of the Christian faith. To affirm that the Christians of the
past were in error in their conceptions of the nature of
Christianity does not remove the difficulty, because we have
no evidence that the Christians of the present time are more
correct in their representations of Christianity than were
their predecessors. Both have had the same sources from
which they drew their conclusions. Besides, what guarantee
have we that Christians of future generations will not condemn
the nineteenth-century interpretation of their faith ? The
mutability which has hitherto characterised the Christian
religion will, in all probability, continue as knowledge in
creases and mental freedom expands. It must not be
forgotten, moreover, that, if Christianity were perfect at its
inception, every subsequent change must necessarily have
deteriorated its value ; while, if it were not perfect at its origin,
and if the alterations which it has undergone have improved
it, then its present condition is the result of man’s ingenuity,
and the faith of to-day is not the production of what is
called Divinity.
Professor Stewart, in his “Handbook,” says : “The evi
dences of Christianity do not claim to be demonstrative,
but to have a high degree of probability—as high as in the
case of other principles which determine human action.”
But there is no analogy between Christianity and “ other
principles which determine human action.” We have
no evidence upon which we can depend as to the origin
and early history of the Christian faith, and therefore
we cannot consistently apply the law of probability to its
birth and infancy. In human affairs we establish “ a high
degree of probability,” either by personal investigation or
upon the trustworthy testimony of others. In the case of
the establishment of Christianity, however, we can adopt
neither of these methods. Of course, personal examination
is impossible ; and, apart from the New Testament, there is
�THE NATURE AND VALUE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
II
no reliable testimony, either sacred or secular, as to the
birth, life, and death of Jesus. Supposing the Gospel
account of his birth is accepted, even then only one person
could testify as to its accuracy, and she maintained silence
upon the subject. No other person then living could have
vouched for its truth. How, therefore, is it possible for us
to possess any evidence of the miraculous introduction of
Christ into the world ? At the most we have but an account
of a rumour that is supposed to have been circulated two
thousand years ago ; and this rumour did not, it appears,
reach the historians living at the time when the birth is said
to have taken place. Even two of the special biographers
of Christ seem to have known nothing of the event. This
is where good testimony would be valuable; but it is no
where to be found in the two Gospels referred to.
It is quite useless to talk about “the nature and value”
of the evidences of Christianity, as many theologians do,
inasmuch as the institution of the faith is not the subject of
any history that has survived to the present day. The docu
ments that are alleged to have contained its earliest cre
dentials cannot be traced. It is admitted by Biblical
scholars that nothing was known of the New Testament for
nearly two centuries after the events therein recorded were
said to have happened; and it is also acknowledged that,
from that period to the present, the book has been altered
again and again. Now, remembering that these very Scrip
tures contain the only evidence of the primitive history of
Christianity, it will be seen that such evidence cannot be of
any real value in the attempt to establish the validity of the
Christian claims.
An important fact in connection with the value of Christian
evidences is this, that the very nature of many of the events
recorded in the New Testament is such that it is impossible
to secure any evidence to prove that they took place. The
age of implicit belief has gone, and the intelligent minds of
to-day cannot be satisfied by being told that ages ago things
occurred that are now known to be contrary to the experience
of the world and to the laws of nature. The knowledge that
certain phenomena result from natural causes should prevent
men from ascribing them to agencies above, beyond, or
outside nature. Hence evidences, to carry conviction, ought
to refer to matters which accord with what is known of
�12
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
nature and of man. The fact is Christian evidences do not
do this, for they are cited to prove the truth of a system
which teaches many absurd improbabilities that no sane
man would now believe upon any amount of testimony.
For instance, what evidence would prove to the existing
generation that a child could be born without a human
father, that the human body could possess at one time
hundreds of devils, and that dead men could be raised to
life from their graves ? Such things are opposed to all
reason, and yet they form a part of the teachings of Chris
tianity.
The best evidence that can be adduced to prove the truth
of any religion is the reasonableness of its doctrines and the
practicability and usefulness of its ethics. With such advan
tages its truth becomes self evident, and requires no elaborate
treatises to prove its value. Now, it is of these two particular
features that Christianity is deficient; its doctrines are
mystical and absurd, and, so far as it has any unique
morality, it is incapable of being reduced to practice in
daily life. Of its doctrinal folly there is ample evidence in
its teachings as to the Trinity, the scheme of salvation, and
the perplexity of Free Will; of the impracticability of the
ethical inculcation the Sermon on the Mount is a sufficient
witness. It is true this “ Sermon ” has been called the
Magna Charta proclaimed by Christ, although it has never
been made the basis of any human government. Its injunc
tions are so 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
by Professor Huxley, who 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 socalled Lord’s Prayer was ever prayed by Jesus of Nazareth”
(“Controverted Questions,” page 415). The late Bishop
of Peterborough said : “ 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). Even supposing the
historical claims for Christianity were supported by evidence,
that would not be a sufficient set-off against the evidence of
�THE NATURE AND VALUE OF CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.
13
our time as to the inadequacy of Christianity to suit
mundane requirements.
Before the claims of Christianity can be evidentially estab
lished, it must be proved that Christianity has self-evident
truths and trustworthy testimony, and that its teachings har
monise with cultivated reason. In its history no self-interest or
party zeal must be imported ; candour and sincerity should
be manifest, and bias and prejudice excluded. In its pages
the difference between what was known to be true, and
what was but the mere belief of the time, must be made
clear. Such so-called historical evidence as consists of
the imaginations of poets, the theories of dreamers, or
accounts of pretended supernatural events, is to our mind
utterly worthless for the purpose of establishing the truth
and value of any moral system. Taking the New Testa
ment as the only source of evidence as to Christ and his
religion, the student is advised to ascertain, if possible, for
himself whether or not it is of the nature of genuine
history. To us it resembles what Livy says of Scipio
Africanus, that the account of his life, trial, death, funeral,
and sepulture was so contradictory that he was unable to
determine what tradition or whose writings he ought to
credit. The whole question of Christian evidence resolves
itself into this : Is it probable enough to deserve implicit
belief ?
Now, to sum up our estimate of Christian evidences. To
us they appear to be destitute of all the essentials of true
evidence, and to be entirely worthless in proving that
Christianity is aught but a natural growth. We consider
that during its various stages of development it has yielded to
the force of its environments, whereby many of its elements
have been changed and modified to suit the tastes and
requirements of those who professed it at different epochs
of our history. We fail to discover a particle of legitimate
proof to justify the orthodox claim that Christianity had a
supernatural origin, that it has had an unbroken history, and
that to-day it stands pre-eminently above all other systems
as a practical monitor of human conduct.
*
�SECTION II.
GOD AND RELIGION.
Professor Stewart’s chapter, in his “ Handbook of
Christian Evidences,” on “ God and Religion,” is a fair
sample of orthodox exposition and defence. It is intended
to justify the belief in a God who is described as the “ First
Cause, a self-existent Being, the Creator and Regulator of
the Universe;” and also to establish as a fact “ the reality,
power, and universality of religion.” This, however, it
should be remembered, has nothing to do with the question
of Christian evidences, inasmuch as, if the main contentions
of this chapter were proved to be correct, it would not
necessarily prove the existence of the Christian Deity, or
that Christianity is “ a universal phenomenon of human
experience and history.” The fact seems to be overlooked
that there are other gods believed in besides the one depicted
in the Bible, and that there are several religions professed
which have but little in common with Christianity. The
duty of an expounder of Christian evidences appears to us
to be to endeavour to show that the Theism of the Scriptures
is reasonable, and that the religion based upon its teachings
is true. Whatever is urged in reference to other religions
may, or may not, be accurate; but it is of no value as
Christian evidence.
Let us illustrate our meaning upon these points. The
God believed in by Voltaire, Paine, Francis William Newman,
and most of the adherents of what is termed “ Advanced
Theism,” is certainly not the same Deity as is believed in by
so-called Christians, and therefore, if the existence of the
God of the advanced Theists were demonstrated, it would
not follow that the reality of the Bible God was established.
The ablest of our modern Theists will not attempt to defend
the “Supreme Being ” of either the Old or the New Testa
ment. The same argument applies to religion. It is not
�GOD AND RELIGION.
15
enough for an expounder of Christian evidences to make the
general statement that religion is a fact, and to urge that a
belief in some form of it is universal. Even if this were
true, that would not prove the evidential claims made on
behalf of the Christian system, which must be judged by
its own merits. It is admitted that other religions, Buddhism
for instance, is as sublime in its teachings as Christianity,
and that the followers of Buddha are more numerous than
the disciples of Christ. Up to the present time Christianity
is not known by two-thirds of the human race j and among
the one-third, where a knowledge of it obtains, the majority
of the people have no practical faith in its teachings. As a
matter of fact, religion /er se may be true, while the
Christian form of it may be false. Orthodox believers seem
to ignore this truth. We need not dwell here upon the
original meaning of the term “religion,” or upon the fact
that with the Romans it did not signify merely theological
worship, but it meant justice to the State and to the com
munity. It is only necessary for our present purpose to
remind the reader that Christian evidences have failed to
show that the religion of the New Testament is unique, or
that it is superior to other religious systems. The theory
that Christianity has the advantage of the authority of
revelation to support it has no force whatever, for, as Max
Muller, in his “Science of Religion” (page 45), observes,
“ the claims to a revealed authority are urged far more
strongly and elaborately by the believers in the Veda than
by the apologetical theologians among the Jews and
Christians.”
Professor Stewart, like most Christian advocates, puts it
that the study of the Christian evidences must be preceded
by “ a conviction of the existence of God and of the reality
amd power of religion.” Now, we submit that persons who
are already convinced need no evidence to convince them,
and, therefore, to seek for evidence to prove what is regarded
as having been proved is, to say the least, a work of super
erogation. Much importance is attached by Christian
exponents to the alleged universal need that is said to be
felt for religion. But the truth of this allegation will depend
entirely upon the definition that is given of religion. If by
the term we mean love, truth, justice, and benevolence,
the cultivation of man’s moral nature, and the exemplifica
II
�i6
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
tion in our daily actions of fidelity to our professions, and
due consideration for the rights and comforts of others,
then, doubtless, most civilised person are religious. But if
by religion we mean the teachings of theology and its
doctrines, then its universal need has not been proved.
Neither has it been shown that such religious ideas are
innate; they are acquired as the result of early training and
of general education. (See F. J. Gould’s “ Concise History
of Religion,” vol. i., pages io, n, and 12.)
Professor Stewart endorses, as indeed most Christians do,
among the definitions of religion, the following : “ Religion
consists fundamentally in the practical recognition of a con
straining bond between the inward life of man and an
unseen person.” “ The perception of the infinite under such
manifestations as are able to influence the moral character
of man.” Now, to assert that religion, as it is here defined,
is universal is the height of presumption. We know of no
one who can recognise a “ bond ” between himself and
“ an unseen person,” or who has the faculties to perceive
“ the infinite,” who is able “to influence the moral character
of man.” The question is not if such a “bond” and “the
infinite ” exist, but can we know of them ? If, as we allege,
we cannot, then they form no part of practical religion,
which is, when properly understood, the ruling principle of
a man’s life. Now, we do know of many persons who
acknowledge that they have no belief whatever in theo
logical religion, and these facts are sufficient to destroy the
contention of its universality. We repeat that there is a
marked difference between the universal belief in some of
the elements that are found in all the different religions of
the world, and the universality of one particular form of
religion. The former may be true, while the latter we
know to be false, which proves that Christian evidences are
of no value upon this point. For facts to prove that the
belief in any one theological religion is not universal, the
reader is referred to Sir John Lubbock’s “Origin of Civilisa
tion,” Tuttle’s “ Career of Religious Ideas,” and to vol. i. of
F. J. Gould’s “Concise History of Religion.” In these
works ample evidence is furnished upon the authority of
travellers and missionaries, whose names are there given,
that tribes and races of men have been found where there
was not the slightest belief in any form of religion. Sir
�GOD AND RELIGION.
z
17
John Lubbock, on page 467 of his work above mentioned,
says : “ It has been asserted over and over again that there
is no race of men so degraded as to be entirely without a
religion—without some idea of a Deity. So far from this
being true, the very reverse is the case. Many, we might
almost say all, of the most savage races are, according to the
nearly universal testimony of travellers, in this condition.”
Burton states that some of the tribes in the Lake Districts of
Central Africa “admit neither God, nor angel, nor devil”
(page 468). “ In the Pellew Islands Wilson found no
religious building nor any sign of religion....... Some of the
tribes (of Brazilian Indians), according to Bates and Wallace,
were entirely without religion.”
Professor Stewart frankly admits that “it is not by argu
ment we obtain our conviction of the existence of God,”
but he adds : “ Formal arguments in support of this con
clusion are not useless.” As this position is a very popular
one among a certain section of Christians, and, moreover,
as it is regarded as a part of the Christian evidences, it
deserves a brief notice. In the first place, it appears to us
that, if argument will not secure conviction, there is no
utility in attempting to supply it; yet “ four forms ” of an
argument are given by Professor Stewart to prove the exist
ence of God. They are as follows
1. The First Cause. The belief in this is considered to
be more reasonable than to believe either in an unending
series of natural causes, or that things came “into existence
without a cause.” Here, it will be observed, creation is
assumed without a particle of evidence being given in its
favour; while no notice is taken of the theory of the eternity
of the universe. Now, if it is unreasonable to believe that
anything could come into existence without a cause (which
we think it is), what about the alleged First Cause, which is
held to be zzzzcaused ? Is it not more reasonable to believe
in the eternity of that of which we know something than
in the zz/zcaused existence of that of which we know
nothing ?
2. It is stated that, as there are in the works of nature
marks of intelligence and purpose, the author of nature
must be intelligent. The weak and inconclusive feature in
this argument lies in the inference that intelligence in
nature must have had an intelligent author. This very
�THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
point, upon which some evidence is required, is simply
assumed without even any attempt being made to give
reasons for the assumption. If the intelligence in nature
needed a higher intelligence to produce it, is it not fair to
suppose, upon the same principle, that this higher intelli
gence would require for its production a still higher intelli
gence? Further, if, in consequence of the existence of
intelligence, it be more rational to believe that the universe
was caused than to believe that it is self-existent, then must
it not be equally rational to consider that this still higher
intelligence was caused ?
3. The allegation here is that our minds are so con
stituted that we are driven to the conclusion that God is a
being that must be. This is but an assertion, and, until
some evidence is given in its support, it proves nothing.
The same may be said of space, which we cannot conceive
of either beginning or ending.
4. We are here told that we have a feeling of responsi
bility to a personal and moral Being, and, therefore, we are
led to infer his existence. To this we offer an unqualified
denial; for no such feeling of responsibility is found among
savages or untaught persons. To attempt to show that
the presence of a moral sense in cultivated man is a proof
of the existence of a supernatural power is really too illogical
to require further comment than to say that it is a pure
assumption, and cannot possibly afford any evidence of a
logical conclusion.
The case of Religion and God stands thus : The former,
to be acceptable to the refined intelligence of the present
age, should be free from all theological mysticism and
doctrinal absurdity ; and the latter can only be a question
of subjective faith, not capable of argumentative demon
stration. Christianity has not the required freedom, and,
therefore, it is desirable that it should yield to a better faith
__one that is more in harmony with the genius and mental
culture of the nineteenth century. As to the God of the
Christians, with his Biblical record of folly, cruelty, and
injustice, we allege that such a being is not suited as an
object of worship; while in the earthquakes, cyclones,
and volcanic eruptions that are constantly destroying the
lives of thousands of innocent men, women, and children
we fail to see any proof of love and kindness on the
�GOD AND RELIGION.
19
part of what is termed the God of Nature. In our opinion,
no moral argument can be based upon Theism in the
presence of the fact that these calamities and disorders
obtain in the world. So long as the lion and the tiger roam
the forest pursuing their work of devastation and devouring
their prey ; so long as vice flourishes, and virtue pines in
want and misery; so long as “ fraud glitters in the palace,
and honesty droops in the hovel,” so long shall we be ready
to exclaim with the Rev. George Gilfillan, who, in his
“ Grand Discovery of the Fatherhood,” in noticing the
horrors and the evils that exist around us, asks : “ Is this
the spot chosen by the Father for the education of his
children, or is it a den of banishment or torture for his foes ?
Is it a nursery, or is it a hell ? There is no discovery of the
Father in man, in his science, philosophy, history, art, or in
any of his relations.” Well may Dr. Vaughan, in his work,
“The Age and Christianity,” write: “No attempt of any
philosopher to harmonise our ideal notions as to the sort of
world which it became a Being of infinite person to create,
with the world existing around us, can ever be pronounced
successful. The facts of the moral and physical world
seem to justify inferences of an opposite description from
benevolent.’
�SECTION III.
THEISM AND OTHER “ ISMS.”
In this section of his “ Christian Evidences ” Professor
Stewart rejects Materialism, Pantheism, and Agnosticism,
because they do not furnish a satisfactory “explanation of
the universe.” The usual Christian allegation is here made
that, if we do not accept the theory offered by Theism (it
should be said by Christian Theism), we are logically bound
to submit another to take its place. But to this we em
phatically demur, for it does not follow, because the above
“ isms ” fail to give an adequate explanation of the universe,
that Christianity supplies the omission ; that is what should
be proved, but it is not. The assertion that God created
matter and life is no explanation of the one or the other.
In the light of modern science, it is evident to us that the
Bible account of the supposed origin of the universe and
the creation of man—which contains the Christian theory—
is utterly erroneous, and no evidence is produced to establish
its validity.
It is not enough, therefore, for expounders of the Christian
evidences to show that Agnosticism or Materialism has no
theory to explain the why and wherefore of existence ; they
must, in order to make good their claim, prove that their
hypothesis is a reasonable one. For instance, it must be
demonstrated, as stated in the Old Testament, that the
universe and Adam and Eve were created in six days, about
six thousand years ago; that man was made from the dust
of the earth, and that woman was made from one of his
ribs ; that the human race has degenerated from an original
state of perfection ; that death was the result of sin upon
the part of Adam ; and that, in the time of Noah, a universal
flood “ prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days,”
covering “ all the high hills and the mountains,” destroying
“ every living substance ” that was then in existence, except
�THEISM AND OTHER “ ISMS.”
21
Noah “ and they that were with him in the ark.” Further.,
before the Christian theory can be accepted as being true,
evidence should be forthcoming that man by nature is
necessarily corrupt, and that in him “dwelleth no good
thing ” (see Romans iii. 23, vii. 18; 2 Cor. iii. 5 ; Phil. ii.
13, iii. 21; Psalm li. 5.); that the majority, of those who
are now living are doomed to suffer after death the tortures
of a burning hell (see Matt. vii. 13 and 14, xxii. 14; 2
Thess. i. 7, 8, 9); that it is possible for all mankind to
believe one thing—namely, salvation through Christ (see
Acts iv. 10, 11, 12; Mark xvi. 16); and that the New
Testament is accurate in describing persons who were
suffering from physical disease as being possessed with
devils. Now, the reader is requested to particularly note
that, from a Christian point of view, the question is not, are
there any other theories of the universe apart from the one
given by Christianity that will satisfy the critical test ? As
Christians claim that their theory is correct, it should be
made to harmonise with the facts of science, philosophy,
and experience. Up to the present, so far as we are aware,
no such harmony has been established.
The very fact that the theory of evolution has been
accepted even by many Theists, as a partial explanation of
phenomena, is evidence that the Christian theory is not
considered satisfactory. Granted that evolution does not
come within the domain of demonstrated science, it does,
however, agree with the science of probability, and Bishop
Butler has said, “ Probability is the guide of life.” It should
not be here overlooked that probability cannot apply to
that of which nothing is known, hence it can have no refer
ence to the alleged origin of the universe, or to its super
natural government, for these are questions of speculation,
not of knowledge. The very thought of a beginning of the
universe is unthinkable, as Dean Mansel observes: “Creation
is, to the human mind, inconceivable.” As to the term
“ supernatural,” it means, in popular language, something
higher than nature. But, if there is a sphere higher than
nature, and yet often breaking through nature, nature itself
must be limited by something, and the question arises, By
what is such limitation fixed, and what is the boundary line
which marks it off and separates it from the supernatural ?
Further, supposing such a line to be well known, so that
�22
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
no difficulty could arise in pointing it out, a still more diffi
cult problem presents itself for solution—namely, how man,
who is a part of nature, and able only to come into contact
with nature, can push his knowledge into that other sphere
which, being non-natural, cannot be at all accessible to a
natural being ? If the supernatural region be synonymous
with the unknowable, it cannot clearly concern us, simply
because we have no faculties with which to cognise it, and
no powers capable of penetrating into its profound depths.
In examining the claims of Christianity, we must enforce
our contention that we have nothing to do with any other
system but that of Christianity, for the reason that, if there
were twenty other theories, and all were proved to be false,
that would not make the Christian theory true. Materialism
and Agnosticism have no theories as to the origin and
government of the universe by an external power; and
while in our present inquiry we are not concerned to defend
.either of these “ isms,” we desire to correct an error into
which Professor Stewart has fallen. In reference to Agnosti
cism, he observes : “ The truth in Agnosticism is that man’s
knowledge of God....... is, though real, imperfect and
inadequate.” This is an inaccurate statement of the
Agnostic position, which recognises no knowledge, either
adequate or inadequate, of the existence of God. Agnosti
cism declares that the subject is outside our gnosis, and,
while refusing to dogmatically deny Deity’s existence, it
alleges that we can know nothing of him, since such a being
as the one described by Theists transcends all our powers
and faculties. The Agnostic is always willing to carry on
his investigations into nature to the utmost extent of his
ability. He seeks to wring from her the secrets hidden
through all the ages of the past; he pushes his inquiries
from point to point, and learns all that can be known of the
marvellous processes of life and mind; but the incompre
hensible he seeks not to comprehend, and the unknowable
. he does not make the idle attempt to know. This course
he deems more courageous, more dignified, and more
candid than that adopted by the dogmatic theologian, who,
yearning for a knowledge of the absolute, and yet failing to
discover it, lacks the courage to avow his inability to achieve
the impossible.
�SECTION IV.
THE QUESTION OF REVELATION.
The positions taken by orthodox Christians upon the
question of Revelation are : (i) That the Old and New
Testaments contain a special revelation from God; that
there are some parts of the Bible which are not divinely
inspired, but are simply the recorded opinions of the writers,
and that the New Testament is of more importance to
Christians than the Old, because the latter was intended for
the Jews. Some Christians, however, urge that, in order
that the Jews may participate in the salvation offered through
Christ, it is necessary that they should accept the New
Testament as well as the Old. (2) That Biblical revelation
was necessary, inasmuch as nature is not only insufficient as
a guide to mankind, but that on many “ an occasion of our
sorest need” it “is blind and deaf to our beseeching.”
Such is the statement of Professor Stewart, who adds : “We
find it impossible to believe that a Supreme Being who is
good would leave man without needed guidance, and that
One who is wise and powerful could not discover a method
■of affording such guidance.” (3) That the doctrine which
denies that God “has revealed himself, except through
nature and conscience, finds itself involved in difficulties
when confronted with the problem of physical and moral
evil.” These are the three principal features which differ
entiate Christianity from natural religion.
As to the first position. If the whole of the Bible is not
a revelation from God, how are we to decide what portions
are inspired and what are not ? If each person is to decide
the question for himself, then, as the Rev. Dr. Caird has
shown, other Bibles that inculcate teachings which are very
different from those taught by Christianity may be con
sidered as “ divine revelations.” Besides, this “ explanation ”
�24
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
makes the man decide what is “ divine,” which is fatal to
the claims of Christianity. Moreover, against the validity
of this Christian position the following objections appear to
us to deserve attention : Could revelations which are contra
dictory in themselves emanate from a mind that is infinite
and unchanging ? If the later revelation contains something
which is superior to anything found in the earlier, is it not
a reflection upon an all-wise and all-good God that he
should have so long deprived his children of the superior
communication ? Supposing that God sent the Old Testa
ment to the Jews, it is reasonable to presume that he knew
what would be sufficient for them. Is it not, therefore,
orthodox impertinence to endeavour to force upon them
the New Testament ?
Another point that should be remembered is that, if this
alleged new revelation were a direct communication from
God, it could only have been so to the person or persons to
whom it was made. A revelation to Paul would not be a
revelation to us, and therefore it could be of no evidential
value to the present generation. There is also to be con
sidered the doubtful channel through which the New
Testament has come down to us ; the many abridgments
and interpolations to which the documents have been sub
jected must necessarily have prevented it from being evidence
in support of the Christian claims. Again, it does not
appear that the writers of the New Testament professed
that what they recorded was a revelation from God; they
only claimed it to be a narration of what they saw, heard,
and gathered from the traditions of earlier periods. This
seems to be the Rationalistic view that should be taken of
the entire Bible, inasmuch as the numerous errors and con
tradictions which it contains make the fact self-evident that
the book, as we have it to-day, could not possibly have been
a revelation from a perfect Being.
The second position taken by Christians as to revelation
is based upon the double fallacy of supposing that the New
Testament gives us a better guide for human conduct than
we find in nature ; and that the God of Revelation is not
“ blind and deaf to our beseeching.” Here, as in previous
sections, we find orthodox assumptions taking the place of
legitimate evidence. Can there be any doubt that the two
important guides, cultivated reason and scientific facts, are
�THE QUESTION OF REVELATION.
25
to be attributed to nature ? Where are these guides to be
found in the Christian Revelation ? In it faith is regarded
as being higher than reason, and reliance upon prayer as of
more value than dependence upon science. It should be
borne in mind that at one period of our history an attempt
was made to accept this revelation as a guide of life, but it
was found thoroughly inadequate as a monitor in human
actions. The very effort to make it so completely paralysed
the progress of science, the advancement of education, and
the ethical growth of the age.
Even now, when the
“ Peculiar People ” follow the teachings of this revelation as
a guide, the results are unfortunate, for the consistent
believers are punished for adhering to the assumed revealed
instructions. It is only where reason and science, aided by
human experience, guide the actions of mundane life that
we find advancement going on to a higher and nobler
civilisation.
Those who profess to believe that the God of Revelation
is not “ blind and deaf to our beseeching ” should produce
some evidence that their belief has a sound basis. It is of
no value as evidence to remind us that Revelation promises
that prayers shall be answered, unless it can be shown that the
promises were fulfilled. And this, we submit, has not hitherto
been done. Have we not on record too many instances
where loving parents have spent hours in “ beseeching ” that
the lives of their children should be spared ; of earnest
prayers being offered up that pain and agony should cease;
that poverty and despotism should no longer mar the happi
ness of the race? Were not special supplications sent to
the God of Revelation to avert the deaths of Prince Albert,
the Duke of Clarence, the late Emperor of Russia, Abraham
Lincoln, and Garfield ? In these cases not only personal,
but national “ beseechings ” were made to the God of
Revelation that the lives of these men should be saved; but
he was “ blind and deaf ” to all “ beseechings.” It is no
answer to say that in these instances it was not God’s will
that the prayers should be answered, for, if that were so, it
shows the folly of “ beseeching ” him to do anything. The
Bible tells us that God “ knoweth the secrets of the heart ”
(Psalm xliv. 21); that he “ doeth according to his will, and
none shall stay his hand” (Daniel iv. 35); and that he
“never changes” (Mai. iii. 6). If these “revealed” words
�26
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
are to be relied upon, where is the utility of “ beseeching ”
him to help us at all ? He knows when help is required,
and, if he intends to render it, he will do so ; but, if he does
not, no “ beseeching ” will be of any avail, for he “ never
changes.”
The third position involves the problem of the existence
of physical and moral evil in the world. Professor Stewart,
in his “ Christian Evidences,” admits that there are difficulties
connected with this question, and he contends that the
Deists with their “ God of Nature ” cannot remove the
difficulties, but that the Christians with their God of
Revelation can. Referring to John Stuart Mill’s essay, “On
Nature,” the Professor says : “ It must be acknowledged
that, if natural laws be all, and natural ends the only ends
to be achieved, it is difficult to avoid the horns of Mill’s
dilemma, by which we are called upon to reject either the
power or the goodness of God. And what is true of physical
evil is still more apparent when we turn to consider moral
evil. Perfect as the system of the world may have been
when it left the hands of its Creator, who can doubt, in the
face of daily experience, that it has somehow gone wrong ?
Christianity recognises this.” Here it may be asked : “ If the
system of the world ” were originally perfect, how could it
have “gone wrong”? And, if God were all-powerful, why
did he allow it to go wrong ? The Christian’s answer is,
that God could not give man liberty of choice, without his
having the option of going wrong. This is the proffered
harmony between the existence of a God of infinite power,
wisdom, and goodness, and the existence of physical and
moral evil. We fail to see where the goodness of God is
manifest here, for, from a human standpoint, we consider
that, if a being had the power to keep the world right, it
should have been impossible for it to have “ gone wrong.”
It is admitted that there is physical evil in nature, and moral
evil in man ; therefore they must both possess a power
independent of, and opposed to, infinite power. Is not this
both absurd and contradictory ?
The defenders of the claims of Christianity seem to ignore
the following logical conclusions from their premises : If
the Christian Deity be the creator of all things, then he
must necessarily be the “God of Nature,” and. in conse
quence, he is responsible for the pain and misery produced
�THE QUESTION OF REVELATION.
27
by such calamities as volcanoes, with their red-hot lava;
the earthquakes and epidemics that destroy millions of
human beings : the explosions in the mines which cause
the agonising deaths of husbands, fathers, and sons, upon
whom whole families are dependent for the means of
existence; the railway accidents ; and the storms at sea.
Now, these calamities occur either with or without God’s
interference. If with his interference, he is not all-good;
if without, he is not kind and benevolent ; and if they
happen in spite of him, he is not all-powerful. Hence
we agree with J. S. Mill when he says : “ For, however
offensive the proposition may appear to many religious
persons, they should be willing to look in the face the
undeniable fact that the order of nature, in so far as
unmodified by man, is such as no being, whose attributes
are justice and benevolence, would have made with the
intention that his rational creatures should follow it as
an example” (essay, “On Nature,” p. 25). A new version
of the Doxology would not be here out of place, and it
should read something like this :—
“ Praise God from whom all cyclones blow,
Praise Him when rivers overflow,
Praise Him who whirls the churches down,
And sinks the boats, their crews to drown.”
Briefly, the Rationalistic objections to the orthodox claims
of a book-revelation from God are as follows : That in the
New Testament nothing of any value is revealed that was
unknown to the world before. That the God of Revelation,
being the creator of all things, is responsible for the physical
and moral evils in the world. That the same being who
arranged for the redemption of man planned his fall, and
surrounded that event with conditions that rendered moral
freedom of no avail. That, if Adam and Eve before the Fall
did not know good from evil, the power of choice to them
was useless. That to postulate one infinite will as an abso
lute ruler of the universe, and then to add millions of finite
wills, which are capable of thwarting the Infinite one, is, to
say the least, absurd. That no evidence has been produced
which shows that the God of Revelation listens to human
“ beseechings,” and supplies the wants of mankind more
than does the “ God of Nature.” Finally, that cruel and
unjust as nature is (which it ought not to be if it is the
�28
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
production of a good God), in it are contained the remedies
for all the evils that can be removed. When this nature
is modified and improved by man, it is found to be the
only source from which the means are obtained that
enable us to augment human happiness, and to promote
the physical, intellectual, and ethical advancement of the
human race.
�SECTION V.
MIRACLES.
The question to be kept in view in this section is : Supposing
miracles were ever wrought, would that be evidence that
Christianity is a divine system ? To prove that miracles
have happened does not necessarily substantiate the claims
of Christianity, because other religious systems also profess
to be based upon the miraculous. Even the Bible admits
that miracles occurred without divine aid. For proof of
this the reader is referred to Deut. xiii. 1-3 ; Matt. xxiv. 24;
Acts viii. 9, 10. Here it is clearly stated that miracles
were actually performed by agencies the very opposite to
those claimed by Christianity.
Professor Stewart says the miraculous is “ evidence of the
real and reliable character of the revelation, and of the
divine source of the power, manifested in Christianity.”
But this is a fallacy upon the very face of it. What have
miracles to do with the “reliable character of the revela
tion ” upon the practical duties of life ? If Christ did raise
the dead, and perform other wonders, it would not make
him accurate when he taught that this world should be con
sidered as being only of secondary importance ; that utter
indifference should be manifested as to the future of mundane
life ; that a state of poverty is desirable ; that prayer is a
reliable source of material help ; that salvation cannot be
obtained except through him ; that the possession of devils
was the cause of physical and mental disease ; or that the
world was to have come to an end during the lifetime of
those to whom he was speaking. Because the “ revelation ”
very properly advises children to honour their parents, it does
not, therefore, follow that it is “ reliable ” when it says that
Christ was born without a human father, or that he could
have been in two places at the same time. Neither does it
�3°
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
corroborate the statement that Christ the Son, who was
“ born of a virgin,” was as old as God the Father, and that
the Devil has been more potent than either of them. To
make good the claims of Christianity here put forth, their
reliability must be established apart altogether from an
appeal to miracles.
The Christian claim, that the miracles which Christ is said
to have performed prove that he was more than man, is
equally fallacious. As already stated, wonders as great as
those ascribed to Christ have been accomplished by persons
who are admitted to have been but human. Besides, some
of the miracles credited to Christ do not harmonise with
that wisdom, utility, and justice which are said to be cha
racteristic of divinity. As evidence of this, the reader is
requested to peruse the account of his cursing the fig-tree
(Matt, xxi.) ; of his reckless destruction of another person’s
property by casting a herd of swine into the sea, so that
they “ perished in the waters ” (Matt. viii. 32); and of his
turning water into wine (John ii.).
Dr. Middleton, in his “ Free Inquiry,” speaking of miracu
lous events, .writes thus: “If either part be infirm their
credit must sink in proportion ; and, if the facts especially
be incredible, they must of course fall to the ground, because
no force of testimony can alter the nature of things.” If
the unbiased reader will test the miracles of Christ by the
rule that this eminent Christian sets down, it will be seen
how groundless the miraculous claims of Christianity really
are. For, beyond doubt, many of the Christian “facts”
are incredible ; and, therefore, as the Doctor observes, “ they
must of course fall to the ground.” Is it credible that
“ Lazarus should come from his grave, bound hand and
foot with graveclothes,” after he was dead, and decomposition
had set in ? That certain saints who were dead and in
their graves should rise and go into the city, and be heard
of no more ? That Christ should feed a hungry multitude
of “about five thousand men, besides women and children,”
with five loaves and two fishes, and, when all were filled,
that there should be twelve baskets full remaining ? Such
tales would not be believed to-day in connection with human
affairs. Why,, then, should they be thought reliable in
support of claims at which “reason stands aghast, and faith
itself is half confounded ” ?
�MIRACLES.
31
It is worthy of note, as showing the weakness of the claim
that Christ’s miracles prove his divinity, that where he per
*
formed some of his principal works many of the people
were not convinced of the genuineness of his professions.
Faith was a necessary requisite for the belief in miracles.
Where scepticism existed, Christ’s occupation as a thaumaturgus was gone. Matthew informs us (xiii. 58) that Christ
“ did not many mighty works there, because of their un
belief.” But, had the object of miracles been to prove the
divine mission of Christ, it was in the midst of unbelief that
they should have been wrought. Jesus seems to have suc
ceeded tolerably well with his wonders among the ignorant,
the insane, and the deaf and dumb people. When, however,
he came in contact with thoughtful unbelievers, his prestige
was gone. Hence, we read in Matthew (xi. 20): “Then
began he to upbraid the cities wherein most of his mighty
works were done, because they repented not;” and in John
(xii. 37): “ But though he had done so many miracles before
them, yet they believed not on him.” Here is a clear admis
sion that, in Christ’s time, his best miracles were disbelieved
and rejected. Is it expected that in the nineteenth century
we are more credulous than were our predecessors eighteen
hundred years ago ?
The question of the reality, or otherwise, of miracles is
not here involved. Still, it may be urged, as against the
Christian claims, that, if the stories of the miracles of the
New Testament were true, the attributes of an omnipotent,
good, all-wise, and impartial God would be destroyed.
Further, the perfection of his government would be rendered
impossible. A miracle, as understood by the Church,
implies a special act upon the part of God, and his inter
ference with natural sequences. Now, all acts of God—
supposing him to be the being Christians regard him—must
be good acts. If, therefore, it were wise for God to perform
certain acts eighteen hundred years ago, it would have been
equally wise for him to have done so four thousand years
previously. So long, therefore, as he abstained from per
forming those acts, so long did he withhold advantages from
his children, and thereby deal unjustly towards them. To
urge that an act of God may be good and necessary at one
time, and not at another, is to reduce the government of
God to a level with that of man, and to admit that the
�32
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
“ divine ” economy is neither uniform nor perfect. Again,
granting the existence of God, all sequences were arranged
by that God. If arranged by him, they were so arranged
from eternity. Anything which acted contrary to that
arrangement was either the result of an after-plan on God’s
part—in which case he is not all-wise and immutable—or the
arrangement took place in spite of God; and in that case
he is not all-powerful. We only know of existence as it
is, and we judge of its nature and power from experience
and investigation. From these sources of knowledge we
learn that at certain degrees heat will burn, water will
drown, and poison, in given quantities, will destroy life.
To believe otherwise is for man to leave facts and reason,
and to revel in fancy and credulity. The forces in nature,
so far as we have discovered them, are regular in their order,
and “ constancy of succession marks their operations.”
These are truths that science has made known in modern
times, and, if they were always relied upon, no claim could
consistently be made for the reality of miracles.
The Rationalistic view of the miraculous claims of Chris
tianity may be thus briefly stated : (i) That it is impossible
to prove from experience that Christ’s miracles were ever
performed. (2) That the only approach to evidence of their
reality is testimony, which is far from being reliable. (3)
That it is not reasonable to suppose that God would work
miracles, and at the same time endow man with faculties
which enabled him to reject them. (4) That it is true some
events have occurred that have not yet been accounted for
by natural law. If this were not the case, science would now
have no unsolved problems to deal with. But we know
that many events that were once thought to be unaccount
able science has now traced to natural law ; thus “ the
supernatural of one age has become the natural of another.”
(5) To the allegation that religious interests require a
departure from the ordinary laws of nature, we reply that
the difference between ordinary and extraordinary laws has
not been defined, and it cannot be defined until the extra
ordinary law is understood; and, when it is understood,
actions in conformity thereto will not be considered miracu
lous. (6) If it be true that God specially interferes in the
order of the universe, all certainty in human affairs is an
impossibility. (7) If a person to-day were to say that one
�MIRACLES.
33
who was dead had been brought back to life, we should feel
certain that that person had been deceived. Our conclusion
would be based upon natural law, which there is no reason
to suppose could ever have been violated. (8) Even if we
admit the existence of supernatural power, before we can
logically attribute any event to that power, should we not
be prepared to state where the natural ends, and where the
alleged supernatural begins ? Should we not, also, have
some means of recognising the manifestations of that power ?
Because we are not able to explain the why and the where
fore of certain effects, that does not justify us in saying they
are supernaturally produced. Until man knows all that
nature can do, let him not presume to assert what it
cannot do.
�SECTION VI.
THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF CHRIST.
Professed Christians regard Christ as the foundation and
centre of their faith. Whatever weaknesses may be thought
to belong to other alleged evidences of the truth of Chris
tianity, it is said that Jesus is the invulnerable rock, without
flaw or imperfection. This extravagant and unprovable
claim is sought to be maintained by Professor Stewart and
other Christian defenders upon the following grounds :—(i)
That the superior excellence of Christ’s character is acknow
ledged by opponents of Christianity. (2) That the out
lines of his life are historical, and that the portraiture given
of him in the Gospels harmonises with the belief of the
earliest Christians. (3) That this portraiture, in the words
of Professor Stewart, “ must be either an invention or an
idealised picture, or be drawn from actual knowledge of the
person represented.” It is contended that it is impossible
for it to have been either of the first two, and, therefore, his
character “ is a strikingly original one.” (4) It is further
alleged that, if the claims which Christ puts forward in his
own name are not justified, they evince a fanatical selfdelusion, and are fatal to his moral reputation.
Such is the latest evidence given for the purpose of
proving the orthodox claims for Christ. That it is inade
quate for the purpose we hope to demonstrate ; for, even if
we admit that the facts are as stated in the first three
positions here set forth, it does not, therefore, follow that
the claims of Christianity are established. The fact that
certain Sceptics hold a high opinion of Jesus; that the
earliest Christians based their belief on the portraiture of
the Gospels, which are supposed to be, in their “ main out
lines,” historically accurate ; and that the character drawn
of Christ is original, can in no way prove the truth of all that
�THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF CHRIST.
35
is taught by the Christian faith. For instance, it would be
no proof that Christ was equal with God ; that he was in
every particular perfect; that his death atoned for the sins
of the world; and that his teachings are of practical value
in regulating the mundane affairs of to-day. Before we can
accept such positions as furnishing any evidence of the truth
of the claims of Christianity, it must be shown : (i) That
the opinions of the Sceptics were correct; (2) that the out
lines of Christ’s life are consistent, and in accordance with
natural law; and (3) that the portraiture given of Jesus in
the Four Gospels is a correct one.
In connection with this last point it should be remembered
that during the early centuries no one definite uniform
opinion as to the nature and character of Christ obtained
among his followers. E. P. Meredith observes that “at
a most early period of the Christian era there appear to
have been great doubts as to the real existence of Christ.
The Manichees, as Augustine informs us, denied that he
was a man, while others maintained that he was a man, but
denied that he was a God (August. Sermon, xxxvii., c. 12).
The Fathers tell us that it was in the times of the apostles
believed that Christ was a phantom, and that no such
person as Jesus Christ had ever had any corporeal existence.
There is, therefore, considerable force in the expressions of
a modern writer, that the being of no other individual men
tioned in history ever laboured under such a deficiency of
■evidence as to its reality, or ever was overset by a thousandth
part of the weight of positive proof that it was a creation of
imagination only, as that of Jesus Christ. His existence as
a man has, from the earliest day on which it can be shown
to have been asserted, been earnestly and strenuously
denied ; and that not by the enemies of the Christian faith,
but by the most intelligent, most learned, and most sincere
■of the Christian name who ever left to the world proofs of
their intelligence and learning in their writings, and of their
sincerity in their sufferings ”(“ The Prophet of Nazareth,”
pp. 287-8).
Even at the present day contradictory ideas are entertained
as to the real personality or character of Christ. Trini
tarians believe him to be God, but the Unitarians regard
him only as a man ; while the Swedenborgians think him
.a “ divine humanity.” The General Baptists maintain that
�36
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
he died for all men, and the Particular Baptists assert that
he died only for an elect number. Many of Christ’s
admirers look upon his character as being perfect; others
admit that, being human, his character must necessarily be
imperfect. Christian Socialists claim him as a great social
and political reformer ; but their more religious opponents
aver that he was a spiritual regenerator, and that he spoke
the truth when he said, “ My kingdom is not of this world.”
In the New Testament there are clearly two portraitures
given of Christ: the one, gentle and loving; the other,
harsh and unforgiving. From the one come the sympathetic
words : “ Father, forgive them
“ Suffer little children to
come unto me and the command, “ Love one another.”
From the other proceed the gloomy and revengeful exclama
tions : “ He that denieth me before men shall be denied
before the angels of God“ Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire
“ If any man come to me and hate
not his father, and mother, and wife, etc., he cannot be my
disciple.” Now the question is, As these two portraitures
are diametrically opposed to each other, and given by the
same authorities, which is the correct one ?
In reference to the fourth position put forth to prove the
claims of Christianity, it differs from the other three, inas
much as it is evidential; but the evidence is not for, but
against, orthodox claims. The argument urged therein is
that, if Christ were not what, according to the Gospels, he
professed to be, he was a victim to a fanatical self-delusion,
which would indicate weakness in his moral character. The
question, then, is, Was Christ what he claimed to be, and
did he do what he promised to accomplish ? Moreover,
were his actions governed by reasonable modesty, or were
they performed under the influence of uncontrolled enthu
siasm? To decide this question, the New Testament is our
only standard of appeal, and therein we find that the Gospels
represent Christ as claiming to be equal with God, and yet
he was not impervious to human weaknesses and imperfec
tions. He suffered from hunger (Matt. iv. 2); he gave
way to anger (Mark iii. 5), and to petty passion (Matt,
xxi. 18, 19); he lacked power (John v. 19-30); and he
was limited in wisdom (Mark xiii. 32). Further, he
acknowledged that he could do nothing of himself (see
John v. 19 and 30). He announced that he “proceeded
�THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF CHRIST.
37
forth and came from God” (John viii. 42); but he failed to
justify this claim to his townsmen, for they said of him :
“ Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary, the brother of
James, and Joses, and Judah, and Simon? And are hot
his sisters here with us?” “Is not this Jesus the son of
Joseph, whose father and mother we know ? How is it,
then, that he saith I came down from heaven ?” So un
popular, however, he became at Nazareth that “all they
in the synagogue rose up and thrust him out of the city,
and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city
was built, that they might cast him down headlong ”
(Mark vi. 3, John vi. 42, Luke iv. 28, 29). Even his own
relatives had no faith in his pretensions to miraculous
power; they accused him of secrecy, and told him to
“ Depart hence, and go into Judaea, that thy disciples also
may see the works that thou doest; for there is no man that
doeth anything in secret, and he himself seeketh to be
known. If thou do these things, show thyself to the
world. For neither did his brethren believe in him ”
(John vii. 1-5).
In moments of enthusiasm Christ made promises which
he never fulfilled. In Matthew (xix.) we are told that he
promised that certain of his followers should “sit upon
thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel ”; but there
is no record that such an event ever took place. He also
assured believers in him that they should “ cast out devils,”
“ take up serpents, and, if they drink any deadly thing, it
shall not hurt them” (Mark xvi. 17, 18). Will his followers
test his promise in these matters ? Moreover, he em
phatically said : “If two of you shall agree upon earth, as
touching anything that they shall ask, it shall be done for
them of my father which is in heaven” (Matthew xviii. 19).
“ Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that
the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask
anything in my name, I will do it” (John xiv. 13, 14).
Now, here Christ claims to be in a position to guarantee
that the prayers of his believers shall be answered. But
was he justified in so doing? Experience says, No; for,
in spite of prayers asking that scepticism should cease, it
has increased as time rolled on, until to-day it is more
extensive than it ever was. What has been more prayed
for than the unity of Christendom ? Jesus himself prayed
�38
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
that his followers might be one (John xvii. 21); yet, from his
time, divisions among Christians have gone on increasing,
and each sect prays in vain for the conversion of the others.
That many of the acts ascribed to Christ were of a
fanatical kind is evident. For instance, his riding into
Jerusalem upon an ass and a colt (Matthew xxi.); his enter
ing the Temple, overthrowing the money-changers’ tables,
and whipping the merchants from the building with “a
scourge of small cords” (John ii. 15); his cursing the fig
tree, because it did not bear fruit out of season ; his
designating those who came before him as “thieves and
robbers ” (John x. 8), and his vituperations against certain
persons, calling them “Ye serpents, ye generation of
vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell ?” No
wonder that his friends thought he was “beside himself”
(Mark iii. 21), and that the Jews considered “he hatha
devil, and is mad ” (John x. 26). The Rev. Charles Voysey
says Christ could “not have been God, because he was not
a perfect man. He had faults which neither I nor my
readers would venture to imitate without loss of self-respect.
His mind gave way, and he was not responsible for what he
said.” Instead of regarding Jesus as an impostor, the rev.
gentleman said that “ he was simply mistaken, and finally
insane” {Fortnightly Review, January, 1887). Perhaps this
will account for his delusions in reference to prayer, his
belief in people being possessed with devils, that believers
could drink poison and suffer no injurious results, and that the
world was to come-to an end during the lifetime of the
people of his day. N ow, if fanaticism and self-delusion are
fatal to moral reputation, as Professor Stewart says they are,
then Christ’s moral character must be impaired, for the
Gospels allege that he was a victim to both these draw
backs.
What, then, does the evidence at our command in refer
ence to the claims of and for Christ prove ? Simply this :
That for many centuries contradictory and varying beliefs
have obtained in connection with a person called Jesus, who
is supposed to have lived nearly two thousand years ago ;
that he is regarded as having been the founder of the
Christian religion; that his birth was miraculous, his life
and teachings unique, his death unparalleled, and that he
rose from the dead and ascended to heaven. These are the
�THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF CHRIST.
39
fundamental claims urged on behalf of orthodox Chris
tianity ; and we submit that there is no historical evidence,
sufficiently trustworthy, to justify such claims. We look in
vain among the writings of Jewish and heathen historians,
who lived in or near the time when the events are said to
have happened, for any testimony of their occurrence.
Besides, the incidents are so contrary to human experience,
and the New Testament, which records the events, is so
contradictory in narrating them, that, according to the
general law of evidence, the claims have no logical demand
upon our credence. The fact is that the reports found in
the Gospels as to when and where Christ was born, his
genealogy, his sayings and doings, and his death, resurrec
tion, and ascension, are too conflicting and inconsistent for
their credibility to be relied upon. Moreover, the theories
based upon the supposition that the narratives were accurate
are so discordant, and have been so varying in their develop
ment, that it is difficult to conceive they were supported by
fact. The Church, which accepted a theory in one age,
often rejected it in another: while views that were regarded
by some Christian exponents as being orthodox have been
condemned by others as heterodox. And to-day the very
beliefs that were based upon the records of the New Testa
ment are either modified or entirely discarded, not only by
secular scholars, but by learned divines. The new view
entertained by “ advanced Christians ” is that Christ is an
“ idealbut this position is not a sound one, inasmuch as
the question arises, An ideal of what ? If the better parts
of an ideal are marred by that which is erroneous and im
practicable, the ideal is not a safe one for human guidance.
That this is so in reference to the Christ of the Gospels is,
to our mind, beyond doubt. Surely, with these facts before
us, it is unreasonable to attempt to exact implicit belief in
events destitute of logical coherence and of historical
corroboration.
We believe that the more dignified and correct course to
take, from a Rationalist point of view, is to estimate the
value of the traditions that have grown up around the name
of Christ, by the peculiar features belonging to the ages of
their growth, and by the intellectual light of the nineteenth
century. Modern thought must not be fettered by ancient
speculation. If it could be proved that the history of
�40
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Christ were historical, it would not make the impracticable
portion of his teachings useful to us ; and if it could be
shown that he was an impostor, it would not rob any truth
he taught of its real value. In this utilitarian age what is
said should be considered of greater importance than by
whom it is said. Personally, the origin of Christianity has
but little interest for us ; we are the more concerned as to
its truth and utility. Like all religious systems, the one
bearing the Christian name is a combination of the true and
the erroneous, the real and the imaginary, and our duty is
to discriminate between fact and fiction, and to accept the
one and to reject the other. Neither do we consider that
the admission that Jesus might have lived necessitates our
regarding him either as a supernatural being or as an
impostor. Supposing he lived, he might have been, as we
think he was, self-deceived, his better judgment being over
whelmed by his fanatical nature.
Christians, while
admitting the existence of Buddha and Mohammed, will
not grant that they were divine personages, or that their
teachings were perfect ; but the time is past for those
religious founders to be denounced as impostors. Why
should a different rule be applied to Christ ? His teachings
are not superior to theirs, the progress of his faith has not
been more extensive than theirs, and certainly his followers
have not been more numerous than those of Buddha.
What, then, is the Rationalist view of Christ? It is,
briefly, this : That, assuming the New Testament account
of him to be accurate, we must regard him as a man
who possessed but limited education, who was surrounded
by unfavourable influences for intellectual acquirements,
who belonged to a race not very remarkable for literary
culture, who retained many of the failings of his pro
genitors, and who had but little regard for the world or
the things of the world. Viewed under these circumstances,
we can, while excusing many of his errors, recognise and
admire something that is praiseworthy in his character.
But, when he is raised upon a pinnacle of greatness as
an exemplar of virtue and wisdom, and as surpassing the
production of any age or country, he is then exalted to a
position which he does not merit, and which deprives him
of that credit which otherwise he would perhaps be
entitled to. He revealed nothing of practical value, and
�THE PERSONALITY AND CHARACTER OF CHRIST.
41
he taught no virtues that were before unknown. No doubt
in his life 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 incon
sistent, in opinions contradictory, in teaching arbitrary, in
faith vacillating, and in pretensions great. He taught false
notions of existence; he 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. 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, he 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 noble 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, we are told, 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.
*
* For further evidence that the orthodox view of Christ is erroneous,
and that he was no general reformer, the reader is referred to the present
writer’s pamphlet, “Was Christ a Political and Social Reformer?”
where this phase of his character is fully dealt with.
�SECTION VII.
THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
The alleged resurrection of Christ is an important feature
in his history. In fact, the orthodox defenders of Chris
tianity stake the truth of their entire faith upon the reality
of this one event, which is an exceedingly illogical thing to
do. For, supposing Christ did rise from the dead, that
would be no evidence that the whole system of orthodoxy
is true and reasonable. Of course the fallacy in this instance
originated with St. Paul, who is reported to have said :
“ And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain,
and your faith is also vain ” (i Cor. xv. 14). “ What advantageth it me if the dead rise not ? Let us eat and drink, for
to-morrow we die.” This is really the most irrational and
selfish test that was ever submitted to prove the validity of
any claim. It makes the usefulness of Christianity to
depend not upon its ethical value, but upon a theological
dogma. The utter selfishness of the test is apparent, for it
puts personal gain before all considerations of general good.
If all belief in the resurrection were ignored, should we then
have no duties to perform, and no consolation to support
us in the battle of life ? Would all love for mankind and
interest in their welfare cease ? Should we have no hearts
to gladden, no homes to make happy, and no characters to
improve and elevate ? The faith that makes the sunshine
of existence, the recognition of duty, and the cultivation of
virtue to depend upon the belief in a “ risen Christ ” is low
and grovelling in the extreme, and it is thoroughly opposed
to the Rationalist view of the nature and capabilities of
the manifold energies of the human race. Fortunately, such
a -sordid and degrading view of life is as false as it is despair
ing ; for, long before the story of the resurrection was heard
of, the noblest virtues were fostered and the highest possible
�THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
43
happiness was realised; and even to-day it is the same
among millions of the human family where the belief does
not obtain.
Although, from a Rationalist standpoint, the reality or
otherwise of the resurrection of Christ should have no in
fluence upon personal conduct, it may be interesting to
inquire upon what grounds the belief in it rests. The
account of such a marvellous event as the restoration from
death to life of one upon whom the salvation of the world
was supposed to depend should be supported by the clearest
of evidence. But no such evidence exists, which is very
remarkable, if the event were to be considered the strongest
proof of the truth of Christianity. We have not the testi
mony of any eye-witnesses of the resurrection. Early
historians are silent in reference to it, and the accounts in
the Gospels are inconsistent and contradictory. Even the
extraordinary phenomena which are said to have happened
at the death of Christ (Matt, xxvii.) are not mentioned by
Seneca and Pliny, although each of them, as Gibbon informs,
us, “in a laborious work, has recorded all the great pheno
mena of nature—earthquakes, meteors, comets, and eclipses
—which his indefatigable curiosity could collect.”
2
Having, then, no historical evidence of the resurrection,
let us see if there is any value in what the New Testament
says upon the subject. We have not space to present the
many contradictions contained in the Gospels as to the in
cidents which are reported to have occurred at the resurrec
tion ; but, if the reader will examine these carefully, it will be
found that the four writers differ materially upon the following
points : The number of women who went to the sepulchre;
the number of “ angels ” or “men” the women found there;
the words spoken by the “ angels ” or “ men ;” the giving of
the information of what they had seen; to whom Jesus
appeared after his resurrection; and, finally, where the
appearance of Christ after the resurrection took place. Such
conflicting statements as are recorded in the four Gospels
would not be received as evidence, even upon ordinary
matters, in any of our law courts to-day. Some of these
allegations must be false, and it is not impossible that none
of them are true. Not being able to decide which is correct,
we discard them all as being of no evidential value.
In Matthew (xx. 18, 19) it is recorded that Jesus said :
�44
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
“ Behold, we go up to Jerusalem ; and the Son of man shall
be betrayed unto the chief priests and unto the scribes, and
they shall condemn him to death ; and shall deliver him to
the Gentiles to mock and to scourge him, and to crucify him,
and the third day he shall rise again.” Now, if these words
were spoken, we may fairly suppose that such definite
language would have made a deep impression upon his
friends and disciples. But it does not appear to have done
anything of the kind, for, as Greg observes: “We have
ample proof that no such impression was made; that the
disciples had no conception of their Lord’s approaching
death—still less of his resurrection—and that, so far from
their expecting either of these events, both, when they
occurred, took them entirely by surprise; they were utterly
confounded by the one, and could not believe the other.
We find them shortly after—nay, in one instance, instantly
after—these predictions were uttered disputing which among
them should be greatest in their coming dominion (Matthew
xx. 24-27 ; Mark ix. 34-5 ; Luke xxii. 25, 30), glorying in
the idea of thrones, and asking for seats on his right hand
and on his left in his Messianic kingdom (Matthew xix.
27, 28 ; xx. 21; Mark x. 37 ; Luke xxii. 30), which, when
he approached Jerusalem, they thought “ would immediately
appear” (Luke xix. 11; xxiv. 21). The four following
incidents mentioned in the Gospels strongly corroborate the
theory that Christ’s words, that he would “rise again,” had
no effect upon some of his friends : (1) When the two
women visited the sepulchre they took sweet spices to anoint
the body (Mark xvi.), which they would not have done if
they expected that he would rise from the grave ; (2) when
Mary Magdalene discovered that the body was gone she
thought the gardener had removed it (John xx. 15), which is
quite inconsistent with the belief that the resurrection had
taken place ; (3) when the women reported his resurrection
to the disciples “ their words seemed to them as idle tales,
and they believed them not ” (Luke xxiv. n), although it is
distinctly said that Jesus told them the event would happen ;
(4) when he was supposed to have appeared, after his
resurrection, to the eleven disciples at Galilee “some
doubted” (Matt, xxviii. 17), while others thought that “they
had seen a spirit” (Luke xxiv. 37). So sceptical were
certain of the disciples about the “ risen Christ ” that it is
�THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
45
reported that he “upbraided them with their unbelief”
(Mark xvi. 14).
With these Gospel admissions that the story of the
resurrection was not accepted as true by many of those who
lived at the time it is said to have occurred, of what value
is the assertion that the event gained universal assent ?
Why, not only did some of the Christians disbelieve the
story after all possible evidence had been produced
(1 Cor. xv. 12), but the great body of the Jews and the
Romans had no faith in its truth. The fact that the Jewish
Sanhedrim, composed of educated Jews, and the six Roman
governors, mentioned in the New Testament, who had
every opportunity of judging of the genuineness or otherwise
of the story, refused to believe in it, is evidence of its doubt
ful character. Besides, according to Mosheim, many of the
early Christians thought that Christ was not crucified, but
that it was Judas ; and it was not until the second century,
says Charles B. Waite, M.A., in his “History of the
Christian Religion,” that “ the doctrine of the resurrection
of Christ, in a material body, appeared.” It is evident that
the writer of Matthew’s Gospel did not pretend to record
contemporary events, for he writes : “ This saying is
commonly reported among the Jews until this day ”
(xxviii. 15).
The case stands thus: The resurrection itself would
have been an extraordinary event, one contrary to known
natural law, and opposed to all human experience. In its
favour we have no testimony either of eye-witnesses or of
historians who lived at or near the time Christ is alleged to
have risen. The accounts given by the writers of the
Gospels upon the subject are too contradictory to be
received as evidence; many of the people who, it is said,
had been informed that Christ would rise had no idea that
he had risen, while the most learned men of the period
entirely disbelieved the story. These facts afford abundant
.evidence that the resurrection is not a demonstrated truth.
Now, let us briefly consider the reasons given by Christian
exponents in favour of the belief in this—to say the least—
improbable and uncorroborated story, which, be it remem
bered, originated in an ignorant, uncritical, and superstitious
age. In the first place, it is contended that, unless we
accept the Christian account of the origin and perpetuation
�46
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
of the belief in the resurrection of Christ, we are bound to
furnish a better one. Logically, we are not compelled to
do anything of the kind ; all that really devolves upon us
who cannot accept the story is to examine the case for the
affirmation, and to show that the reasons given are in
sufficient to establish the truth of what is affirmed. Christians
deny many of the pretensions of Buddha and Mohammed,
and they disbelieve the stories of the resurrection of
Chrishna, of Adonis, of Osiris, and of many other ancient
“ saviours,” in whom thousands of sincere devotees have
believed. But these very Christians do not deem it their
duty to explain how the faith in the miraculous birth, death,
and resurrection of these religious heroes originated, and
how it was perpetuated. Why, then, are we expected to
account for the belief in such an unlikely event as the
resurrection of Christ ? Superstitions of various kinds, such
as the belief in the miracles of the Catholic Church, in the
pretensions of Joseph Smith, and in the story of the
approaching end of the world, have always been found allied
with ignorance and duplicity. These factors, no doubt,
played an important part in the origination of the belief
that Christ rose from the dead.
While it is not necessary to the position we take that
we should furnish a better reason for the existence of the
belief in the resurrection than the one supplied by Chris
tianity, the following probable causes may be assigned : (i)
The expectation, based upon Christ’s own prediction, that
he would rise again. It is true his words failed to impress
some, but others of more weak and credulous natures were
affected by what he was supposed to have said. (2) The
revolt of the Jews against the Roman power which preceded
the destruction of Jerusalem. This, no doubt, induced many
of Christ’s disciples to think that the end of the world was
at hand in accordance with his predictions (Matt. xxiv.;
Mark xiii.• Luke xxi.), and that he was coming to establish
his kingdom, in which they were to be governors (Matt,
xix. 28). That they were deceived would not alter the fact
that these events tended to justify, to their minds, the
delusion in which they believed. (3) The disciples suffered
from persecution which they might have mistaken for the
fulfilment of another of their Master’s prophecies (Matt,
xxiv. 9). These three circumstances were calculated to
�THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
47
encourage the idea in credulous minds that Christ had been
restored to life, and that he would be with them again. Of
course, they were disappointed, as the second coming of Jesus
was no more a reality than was his resurrection. Besides,
resurrections were believed in long before Christ’s time.
Ovid’s prophecy, in reference to JEsculapius, was very
similar to what has been said about Christ. Here are the
words :—
“ Once, as the sacred infant she surveyed,
The God was kindled in the raving maid ;
And thus she uttered her prophetic tale :
Hail, great physician of the world ! all hail !
Hail, mighty infant, who in years to come
Shall heal the nations and defraud the tomb.
Swift be thy growth, thy triumphs unconfined ;
Make kingdoms thicker and increase mankind.
Thy daring heart shall animate the dead,
And draw the thunder on thy guilty head ;
Then shalt thou die, but from the dark abode
Shalt rise victorious, and be twice a God.”
The belief in the resurrection has been perpetuated
principally through persons accepting the faith without
investigation. This has been the cause of the growth of
nearly all the superstitions of the world. The fact that the
belief in a personal devil, a burning hell, purgatory, and the
efficacy of the mass has been retained so long is to be attri
buted to the lack of free inquiry upon the part of those who
have accepted these theological dogmas. The same with the
belief in the resurrection. How many of those who regard
it as a fact to-day have sought to ascertain what evidence it
has in its support? Even the majority of ministers who
preach this doctrine can give no other reason for believing
in it than because they find that it is taught in a certain
book; and most of the laity who endorse the belief that
Christ rose from the dead are influenced by the delusion
that heaven will be the reward of all who accept the belief,
and that hell will be the portion of those who reject it.
Even St. Paul, who is the principal witness for the resurrec
tion, believed it on trust and faith, “according to the
Scriptures” (i Cor. xv. 3, 4). He also thought that the end
of the world would arrive in the time in which he lived,
but he was mistaken. Why, then, should he be relied upon
in reference to the resurrection ? The supposed evidence of
�48
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
St. Paul is worthless to prove that Christ rose from the
dead. He was not an eye-witness of the event, and his
references to it are most misleading. For instance, he says,
Christ was “seen of the twelve,” but Judas was dead
(Matt, xxvii. 3-5), and Mathias was not chosen until after the
Ascension (Acts i. 26). Then we are told “he was seen
of above five hundred brethren
yet not one of the five
hundred has left the testimony that “ I saw Jesus.” “Last
of all,” says St. Paul, “ he was seen of me.” But how did
he see him ? Let the apostle answer for himself. “ I will
come to visions and revelations of the Lord. I knew a man
in Christ above fourteen years ago (whether in the body I
cannot tell, or whether out of the body I cannot tell: God
knoweth), such an one caught up to the third heaven. And
I knew such a man (whether in the body or out of the body
I cannot tell: God knoweth) ” (2 Cor. xii. 1-3).
Some of the Spiritualists to-day profess to have “visions
and revelationsbut rational minds do not accept such
“ visions and revelations ” as matters of fact, to be depended
upon to prove anything of importance. Moreover, St.
Paul’s idea of a resurrection was that it would be a spiritual
one; and he says “ flesh and blood cannot inherit the
kingdom of God ” (1 Cor. xv. 50); but the alleged resurrec
tion of Christ was of his natural body, and, after he had
risen, we are told he ate broiled fish just before he ascended
“ up into heaven ” (Luke xxiv.).
Professor Stewart says: “ The existence of the Church, and
especially the early institution of the Lord’s Day and of
Easter Day, are proofs of the nature and strength of primitive
belief as to the resurrection.” To this wre reply, that the
resurrection was not a recognised doctrine of the Church
until the second century. But suppose it were, it would not
follow that, because the Church believed it, therefore it was
true. The Roman Catholics dedicated their Church to the
“ Holy Virgin but is that evidence that Mary, who was
the mother of many children, was a virgin ? There is St.
Peter’s at Rome, although it is a disputed point that Peter
ever went to Rome. As to the term “ Lord’s Day,” Tertullian (a.d. 200) is the first writer who applies to it the resur
rection, and we can find no evidence that the two were
associated prior to that time. The Professor ought to know
that the “Lord’s Day” has no reference to the day when
�THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST.
49
Christ is said to have risen. Many conflicting opinions
have been given as to its real meaning. It has been thought
to refer to “ the Gospel dispensation,” to “ the Day of
Judgment,” to the “first day of the week;” but, so far as it
can be applied to anything, it is to the Bible Sabbath, which
is Saturday, the seventh day of the week, and this was not
the day of the supposed resurrection.
In reference to Easter, that was of pagan origin, and in
Chambers’s “ Encyclopaedia ” (article “ Easter ”) it is said :
“ With her usual policy the Church endeavoured to give a
Christian significance to such of the rites as could not be
rooted out; and in this case the conversion was practically
easy.” Christian exponents have a reckless habit of connecting
certain events together as if they bore the relation to each
other of cause and effect, when, in reality, there is no such
relation between them. To claim that the resurrection
was a fact because the Church believed it, and because the
“ Lord’s Day ” and Easter have become recognised institu
tions, is the very height of theological assumption. There
is not a shadow of legitimate evidence to support such a
claim.
We have dwelt upon this and the previous section at
some length, for the reason that the subjects treated are
regarded by Christians as affording the greatest proof of the
truth of their claims. We trust that, from our examination
of the points at issue, our readers will see that at least there
are to these, as to most questions, two sides ; and it is for
them to decide for themselves which they regard as the
correct one.
�SECTION VIII.
THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
No one, we presume, who has marked the development of
religious thought will deny that Christianity has been a
potent factor in the history of the world. Its nature, incen
tive, and general environment would naturally make it so.
Nothing influences the theological mind, either for good or
for evil, more than its notion of supernaturalism. If a person
is induced to have absolute faith in the fatherhood and
sovereignty of God, he deems it his first duty to carry out
that which he considers to be the will of that God. Hence
it is that during intellectual periods men’s notions of Deity
have been refined and cultivated, and, as a consequence, op
pression and persecution of Scepticism have been more rare ;
while, on the other hand, when the multitude held rude
ideas of divinity, minds pure and chaste were sickened at
the scenes of cruelty and bloodshed which were enacted in
accordance with what was supposed to be “ the will of God.”*
What we desire to consider in this section is : Are the
claims put forward by Christian exponents, as to the influ
ence of Christianity upon personal character and natural
progress, borne out by individual experience and the records
of history ? As a rule, man is supposed to know himself
better than others know him ; but there are instances in
which other people can estimate a person more correctly
than he can estimate himself. They will take a more dis
passionate view of his character. They will be in a better
position to compare him with others, and thus judge more
accurately of his relations and comparative place in the
scale of humanity. As with individuals, so it is with systems
* For important facts bearing upon this point the reader is referred
to Earl Russell’s “History of the Christian Religion” and to Buckle’s
“History of Civilisation.”
�THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
51
of religions. The devotees of a certain faith are wont to
regard it as being spotless, and as containing the panacea for
all the imperfections of society. This is particularly the case
with Christian advocates, who not only ignore all that is
evil and defective in the world as belonging to their system,
but credit Christianity with all the progress that has taken
place in modern times. This we believe to be a theological
assumption which is utterly opposed to the true history of
all human improvement. The progress of a nation cannot
be attributed to any one thing or to any one age, but rather to
a combination of circumstances which have been in opera
tion during many ages. For instance, had it not been for
the scientific discoveries in the last century of a Watt, a
Dalton, and others, the sciences with which their names
are associated would not have been so easy of application
to human utility as they are at the present time. It
is equally true that for the freedom from religious intoler
ance which we now enjoy we are as much indebted to
Franklin, Paine, Carlile, Hetherington, Watson, and other
Freethought heroes of the past, as to any of their repre
sentatives of this generation. To judge fairly of the influence
of Christianity, the following facts should be kept in view :—
(i) That it it is not an original system of harmonious teach
ings and of uniform history. This fact we have already abun
dantly proved. No one who has carefully and impartially
read the histories of the ancient religions and ethical systems
can truly allege that the principal doctrines and moral
teachings of the New Testament were known for the first
time in their connection with Christianity. The able
American writer, Charles B. Waite, M. A., in his “ History
of the Christian Religion,” observes : “ Many of the more
prominent doctrines of the Christian religion prevailed
among nations of antiquity hundreds—and in some instances
thousands—of years before Christ.” Judge Strange, in his
work, “The Sources and Development of Christianity,”
shows that nearly all the Christian doctrines—the Atone
ment, Trinity, Incarnation, Judgment of the Dead, Immor
tality, Sacrifice—were of Egyptian origin, and, therefore,
existed long before the time of Christ. The same writer, on
page 100 of the work mentioned, says : “ Christianity, it is
thus apparent, was not the result of a special revelation from
above, but the growth of circumstances, and developed out
�52
• THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
of the materials, working in a natural manner in the human
mind in the place and at the time that the movement
occurred.” “To the truths already uttered in the Athenian
prison,” remarks Mackay, “ Christianity added little or
nothing, except a few symbols, which, though well calculated
for popular acceptance, are more likely to perplex than to
instruct, and offer the best opportunity for priestly mystifi
cation.” Sir William Jones, in his tenth discourse before the
Asiatic Society, says : “ Christianity has no need of such aids
as many are willing to give it, by asserting that the wisest
men of the world were ignorant of the great maxim, that we
should act in respect to others as we would wish them to act
in respect of ourselves, as the rule is implied in a speech of
Lysias, expressed in distinct phrases by Thales and Pittacus,
and I have seen it word for word in the original of Con
fucius.” And the Rev. Dr. George Matheson, in his lecture
on “ The Religions of China,” page 84, frankly states : “ The
glory of Christian morality is that it is not original.”
(2) That to say professed Christians have performed noble
and useful actions is not sufficient to make good the orthodox
claims ; it must be shown that such actions accord with the
teachings of the New Testament. It does not follow that,
because Christianity and civilisation co-exist, therefore the
former is the cause of the latter. Scepticism now obtains
more than at any previous period; but Christians will not
grant that modern progress is the result of unbelief. Civili
sation is not an invention, but a growth; a process from
low animal conditions to higher physical, moral, and intel
lectual attainments. The real value of civilisation consists
in its being the means whereby the community can enjoy
personal comfort and general happiness. History teaches
that the progress of a people depends upon their knowledge
of, and their obedience to, organic laws. The principal
causes of modern civilisation are : The development of the
intellect—this rules the world to-day; the expansion of
mechanical genius—this provides for the increased needs of
the people; the extension of national commerce—this
causes an interchange of ideas; the invention of printing—
this provides for the circulation of newly-discovered facts ;
the beneficial influence of climate—this affects the con
dition both of body and mind; the knowledge and the
application of science—these reveal the value and the power
�THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
53
of natural resources ; the spread of scepticism—this provides
for the vindication of the right of mental freedom; the
practical recognition of political justice—this forms the basis
of all just governments; and, finally, the establishment of
the social equality of women with men—this secures the
emancipation of women from that state of domestic servi
tude and general inferiority in which theology had for
centuries kept them. Now, these civilising elements are
not to be found in the teachings of the New Testament;
but, on the contrary, as we have shown in previous sections
of this pamphlet, much that is taught therein discourages a
progressive spirit (see Matthew vi. 25-34; xix. 21, 29;
Luke xiv. 26 ; John vi. 27 ; xii. 25 ; 1 Corinthians vii. 20 ;
Romans xiii. 1, 2; Ephesians v. 22-24; and 2 Peter ii.
13-18).
(3) The personal results of Christianity have depended
upon the nature and characteristics of those who accepted
it as a belief. Hence persons of the most contrary disposi
tions and the most opposite natures have been its illus
trators, expounders, and living representatives. It has found
room for all temperaments—-the ascetic and luxurious
enjoyer of life; the man of action and the man of con
templation ; the monk and the king; the philanthropist
and the destroyer of his race; the iconoclastic hater of
all ceremonies and the superstitious devotee. It has been,
in the words of St. Paul, “ all things to all men.” This
heterogeneous influence upon the human character, how
ever, is by no means the result of any all-embracing com
prehensiveness in Christianity, but is rather the effect of a
system characterised alike by its indefinite, incomplete, and
undecisive principles. This fact explains why some men
have been good in spite of their being believers in the
orthodox faith, while other believers have been destitute of
the nobler qualities of our nature. The power that “ makes
for righteousness ” came not from Christianity, but from the
natural proclivities of its professors. If this were not so,
we might justly expect that all the recipients of the faith
would have been influenced for good. That they were not
thus influenced we learn from the New Testament and
Christian history. “Contentions,” “strife,” “ indignation,”
“fraud,” and lying were indulged in by St. Paul and his
contemporaries (see Acts xv. 39; Luke xxii. 24 ; Matthew
�54
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
xx. 24; i Corinthians vi. 8 and v. 1 ; Matthew xxvi. 70, 72 ;
2 Corinthians xi. 8 and xii. 16). Mosheim admits that in
the fourth century “ the Church was contaminated with
shoals of profligate Christians....... It cannot be affirmed that
even true Christians were entirely innocent and irreproach
able in this matter ” (see Mosheim’s “ Ecclesiastical
History,” vol. i., pp. 55, 77, 102, 193). Salvian, an eminent
pious clergyman of the fifth century, writes : “ With the
exception of a very few who flee from vice, what is almost
every Christian congregation but a sink of vices ? For you
will find in the Church scarcely one who is not either a
drunkard, a glutton, or an adulterer....... or a robber, or a man
slayer, and, what is worse than all, almost all these without
limit ” (Miall’s “ Memorials of Early Christianity,” p. 366).
Dr. Cave, in his “Primitive Christianity” (p. 2), observes :
“ If a modest and honest heathen were to estimate Chris
tianity by the lives of its professors, he would certainly
proscribe it as the vilest religion in the world.” Dr. Dicks,
in his “ Philosophy of Religion ” (pp. 366-7), also states :
“ There is nothing which so strikingly marks the character
of the Christian world in general as the want of candour
[and the existence of] the spirit of jealousy....... Slander,
dishonesty, falsehood, and cheating are far from being
uncommon among those who profess to be united in the
bonds of a common Christianity.” Wesley, after stating
that “ Bible-reading England ” was guilty of every species of
vice, even those that nature itself abhors, thus concludes :
“ Such a complication of villainies of every kind, considered
with all their aggravations; such a scorn of whatever bears
the face of virtue; such injustice, fraud, and falsehood;
above all, such perjury and such a method of law, we may
defy the whole world to produce ” (“ Sermons,” vol. xii.,
p. 223).
It is not true that, as orthodox believers allege, Chris
tianity is a universal religion. Christ states that he was
“ not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel ”
(Matthew xv. 24). And when he sent his disciples forth to
preach he commanded them to “ go not into the way of the
Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not ”
(Matthew x. 5). Besides, the very nature of the faith pre
cludes it from being suitable to all the nations of the world.
Hence it has always been subject to human conditions and
�THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
55
national environments, and when those factors were un
favourable to its advancement it either made comparatively
no progress, or its exponents altered its form that it might
be adapted to the conditions by which it was surrounded.
Of this fact there is abundant testimony. Tennent, in his
“ Christianity in Ceylon,” says : “ Neither history nor more
recent experience can furnish any example of the long reten
tion of pure Christianity by a people themselves rude and
unenlightened. In all the nations of Europe, embracing
every period since the second century, Christianity must be
regarded as having taken the hue and complexion of the
social state with which it was incorporated, presenting itself
unsullied, contaminated, or corrupted, in sympathy with the
enlightenment, or ignorance, or debasement of those by
whom it had been originally embraced. The rapid and
universal degeneracy of the early Asiatic Churches is asso
ciated with the decline of education and the intellectual
decay of the communities among whom they were estab
lished.” Dean Milman, in his “History of Civilisation,”
observes : “Its [Christianity’s] specific character will almost
entirely depend upon the character of the people who are
its votaries....... it will darken with the darkness and brighten
with the light of each succeeding century.” Lord Macaulay
says, with no less truth than brilliancy: “ Christianity con
quered Paganism, but Paganism infected Christianity. The
rites of the Pantheon passed into her worship, and the
subtleties of the Academy into her creed.” Francis William
Newman, in his “ Phases of Faith,” also remarks: “ I at
length saw how untenable is the argument drawn from the
inward history of Christianity in favour of its superhuman
origin. In fact, this religion cannot pretend to self-sustain
ing power. Hardly was it started on its course when it
began to be polluted by the heathenism and false philosophy
around it. With the decline of national genius and civil
culture it became more and more debased. So far from
being able to uphold the existing morality of the best Pagan
teachers, it became barbarised itself, and sank into deep
superstition and manifold moral corruption. From ferocious
men it learned ferocity. When civil society began to coalesce
into order, Christianity also turned for the better, and presently
learned to use the wisdom, first of Romans, then of Greeks ;
such studies opened men’s eyes to new apprehensions of
�56
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY
the Scripture and of its doctrine. By gradual and human
means, Europe, like ancient Greece, grew up towards
better political institutions, and Christianity improved with
them.”
With these historical facts at their command, it is strange
that Christian writers should put forward, as they do, such
extravagant and groundless claims on behalf of their faith.
Professor Stewart has the temerity to claim, in his “ Hand
book of Christian Evidences,” the following as achieve
ments of Christianity : (i) The introduction of the spirit
of. humanity and the doctrine of brotherhood of man ;
(2) the modern elevation of woman; (3) the abolition
of slavery; (4) the extinction of the gladiatorial combats
in Rome; (5) the establishment of hospitals; and (6) the
fostering of art and general culture. These are some
of the advantages for which it is said we are indebted
to the influence of Christianity. A greater perversion of
facts we have seldom encountered, as we purpose now
showing.
(1) The great principle of love, humanity, and the
brotherhood of man was understood and practised long
before Christianity existed. “ Love,” says the great teacher
of the Academy, “ is peace and goodwill among men, calm
upon the waters, repose and stillness in the storm, and
balm of sleep in sadness.” “ Independently of Christian
revelation,” says Merivale, “the heathen world was gravi
tating, through natural causes, towards the acknowledgment
of the cardinal doctrines of humanity ” (“ Conversion of the
Roman Empire,” p. 118). In Mencius we have the noble
statement that ‘^Humanity is the heart of man.” Lecky
writes : “ The duty of humanity to slaves had been at all
times one of those which the philosophers had most ardently
inculcated....... But these exhortations [on the duty of abstain
ing from cruelty to slaves], in which some have imagined that
they have discovered the influence of Christianity, were, in
fact, simply an echo of the teaching of ancient Greece, and
especially of Zeno, the founder of the sect who had laid
down, long before the dawn of Christianity [italics are ours],
the broad principle that all men are by nature equal, and
that virtue alone establishes a difference between them ”
(“History of European Morals,” vol. i., pp. 324-5 ; see
also “The Sacred Anthology,” by Moncure D. Conway,
�THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
57
pp. io and 354). Lecky also states that “the doctrine
of the brotherhood of mankind” was an active factor in
Rome, and that “ Cicero asserted it as emphatically as
Seneca” {ibid, p. 361). Christ’s idea of brotherhood was
an exceedingly limited one, inasmuch as it was confined to
those who believed in him. Even at the “judgment day”
mankind are to be divided, “ as a shepherd divideth. .his
sheep from his goats” (see Luke xii. 9; Matthew xxv. 32).
(2) The position of woman, according to the Bible,
is low and humiliating in the extreme. It teaches that
“ Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over
thee” (Genesis iii. 16). It enjoins that, as the Church is
subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own
husbands in everything (Ephesians v. 22-24). Women are
not to speak in public, but to be under obedience, as also
saith the law ; they are not permitted to teach, but to learn
in silence with all subjection, for the reason that “ Adam
was first formed, then Eve, and Adam was not deceived,
but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression ”
(1 Timothy ii. 11, 15). These notions are not, when
accepted, calculated to elevate the character or better the
condition of woman. Herbert Spencer says : “ In England,
as late as the seventeenth century, husbands of decent
station were not ashamed to beat their wives. ' Gentlemen
arranged parties of pleasure for the purpose of seeing
wretched women whipped at Bridewell. It was not until
1817 that the public whipping of women was abolished in
England. Wives in England were bought from the fifth to
the seventeenth century.” Contrast this with the treatment
of woman before the advent of Christianity. Lecky says :
“ The Roman religion was essentially domestic, and it was
the main object of the legislator to surround marriage with
every circumstance of dignity and solemnity. Monogamy
was, from the earliest times, strictly enjoined, and it was
one of the great benefits that have resulted from the expan
sion of the Roman power that it made this type dominant
in Europe. In the legends of early Rome we have ample
evidence of the high moral estimate of women, and of their
prominence in Roman life. The tragedies of Lucretia and
of Virginia display a delicacy of honour, a sense of supreme
excellence, of unsullied purity, which no Christian nation
could surpass ” (“ European Morals,” vol. ii., p. 316). “The
�58
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
legal position of the wife had become one of complete inde
pendence, while her social position was one of great dignity ”
(ibid., p. 323). Sir Henry Maine, in his “ Ancient Law,” says :
“No society which preserves any tincture of Christian
institutions is likely to restore to married women the
personal liberty conferred on them by the middle Roman
law....... The later Roman law having assumed, on the theory
of natural law, the equality of the sexes, control of the
person of the woman was quite obsolete when Christianity
was born. Her situation had become one of great personal
liberty and proprietary independence, even when married,
and the arbitrary power over her of her male relatives, or
her guardian, was reduced to a nullity ; while the form of
marriage conferred on the husband no superiority....... But
Christianity tended from the first to narrow this remarkable
liberty.”*
(3) No one questions that slavery is taught in the Bible.
But. the damaging fact to the Professor’s contention is that,
while at the time when Christ is supposed to have lived
the horrors of slavery existed on every hand, yet he was
silent upon this great evil. In fact, slavery is endorsed in
the New Testament, for we read : “ Let as many servants
as are under the yoke count their own masters as worthy
of all honour.” “ Exhort servants to be obedient unto
their own masters.” “ Servants, be obedient to them that
are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and
trembling.” “Servants, be subject to your masters with
all fear: not only to the good and gentle, but also to the
froward” (1 Tim. vi. 1 ; Titus ii. 9; Ephesians vi. 5;
1 Peter ii. 8). While the humanity of many professed
Christians prompted them to oppose slavery, among the most
persistent upholders of slavery and the most determined
opponents to its abolition were Christians, not only of this
country, but also of nearly all the American denominations.
* For ample evidence, showing the unjust laws which Christian
Councils passed, that were degrading to woman, and also the treat
ment she received from the Christian Fathers, the reader is referred to
a very able book, “Woman, Church, and State ” (chapters vii. and ix.),
by Matilda J. Gage; also to “Men, Women, and Gods,” by Helen
H. Gardener. In these two works ample evidence is given to dis
prove the allegation that woman owes her improved condition to Chris
tianity.
�THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
59
It is stated in “ The Life and Times of Garrison ” that, at
an American convention held in May, 1841, he proposed:
“ That, among the responsible classes in the non-slaveholding
States, in regard to the existence of slavery the religious
professors, and especially the clergy, stand wickedly pre
eminent, and ought to be unsparingly exposed and reproved
before all the people.” Theodore Parker said that, if the
whole American Church had “ dropped through the
Continent and disappeared altogether, the anti-slavery cause
would have been further on” (“Works,” vol. vi., p. 333).
He pointed out that no Church ever issued a single tract
among all its thousands against property in human flesh and
blood, and 80,000 slaves were owned by Presbyterians,
225,000 by Baptists, and 250,000 by Methodists. Even
Wilberforce himself declared that the American Episcopal
Church “ raises no voice against the predominant evil;
she palliates it in theory, and in practice she shares in it.
The mildest and most conscientious of the bishops of the
South are slaveholders themselves.”
Neither did Christianity improve the position of the
slaves, for both Lecky and Gibbon have shown that the
condition of slaves was, in some instances, better before
than it was after the introduction of Christianity. Prior to
Christianity many of the slaves had political power; they
were educated, and allowed to mix in the domestic circles
of their masters ; but subsequent to the Christian advent the
fate of the slave was far more severe, hence Lecky observes :
“ The slave code of imperial Rome compares not unfavour
ably with those of some Christian countries. The physician
who tended the Roman in his sickness, the tutor to whom
he confided the education of his son, the artists whose
services commanded the admiration of the city, were usually
slaves. Slaves sometimes mixed with their masters in the
family, ate habitually with them at the same table, and were
regarded by them with the warmest affection ” (Lecky’s
“ History of Morals,” vol. i., pp. 323 and 327). The Council
of Laodicea actually interdicted slaves from Church com
munion without the consent of their masters.
The
Council of Orleans (541) ordered that the descendants of
slave parents might be captured and re-placed in the servile
condition of their ancestors. The Council of Toledo (633)
forbade Bishops to liberate slaves belonging to the Church.
�6o
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
Jews having made fortunes by slave-dealing, the Councils of
Rheims and Toledo both prohibited the selling of Christian
slaves except to Christians. Parker Pillsbury’s excellent
work, “ Acts of the Anti-Slavery Apostles,” is a strong
indictment against the Christian Church for its conduct in
supporting slavery.
(4) It is not true that the Galilean faith removed the
blots that dimmed the glory of the ancient world. Slavery,
infanticide, and brutal sports remained for centuries after
the erection of the symbol of the Cross. We grant that
Rome, like every other country, had its vices ; but Chris
tianity failed to remove them. As Lecky observes, “ the
golden age of Roman law was not Christian, but Pagan ”
(“History of European Morals,” vol. ii., p. 44). The
gladiatorial shows of Rome had a religious origin ; and,
while some of the grandest pagan writers condemned them,
they were not abolished till four hundred years after the
commencement of the Christian era. And be it observed
that the immediate cause of their ultimately being stopped
was that at one of the exhibitions, in a.d. 404, a monk was
killed.
“His death,” says Lecky, “led to the final
abolition of the games ” {ibid, p. 40). It was a noteworthy
fact that, while the passion for these games existed in
Rome, its love for religious liberty was equally as
strong; and it was this very liberty that was first
destroyed in the Christian Empire {ibid, p. 38). Every
nation has had its national drawback, and Christian
countries are no exception to the general rule. Under the
very shadow of the Cross cruelties of the deepest dye have
been practised. Bull-fights, badger-hunting, cock-fighting,
and pigeon-shooting have all been, and still are, favourite
amusements in Christian lands. What was the state of
morals in England during the reigns of Henry VIII., Queen
Mary, Queen Elizabeth, and George IV. ? Was there ever
a period of greater moral depravity and intellectual poverty
than when the Christian Church was paramount and
supreme, when the saints, the bishops, and the priests were
guilty of the worst of crimes, including incest, adultery, and
concubinage, when “ sacred institutions,” filled with pious
nuns, were converted into brothels and hot-beds of infanti
cide ? (ibid, 351). Rome, withall its immorality, will bear
comparison with the early ages of Christianity.
�THE INFLUENCE OF CHRISTIANITY.
61
(5) There is no lack of evidence to prove that considera
tion for the poor and the sick existed centuries before the
Christian era. Such virtue is confined to no one race, and
to no one religion. According to Prescott, the ancient
Mexicans had hospitals in the principal cities “ for the cure
of the sick, and for the permanent refuge of disabled
soldiers” (“History of the Conquest of Mexico,” p. 140).
Hospitals are evidently the outgrowth of dispensaries, and
we are told that, as far back as the eleventh century b.c.,
the Egyptians had medical officers who were paid by the
State, and who attended in some public place to prescribe
for the sick who came there. These were qualified men ; for
at this early date there was a College of Physicians, and only
those who were licensed by this college were allowed to prac
tise. R. Bosworth Smith, M. A., writes in his “ Mohammed
and Mohammedanism ” : “No Christian need be sorry to
learn, or be backward to acknowledge, that, contrary to
what is usually supposed, two of these noble institutions
[hospitals and lunatic asylums]....... owe their origin and
their early spread, not to his own religion, but to the great
heart of humanity, which beats in two other of the grandest
religions of the world. Hospitals are the direct outcome
of Buddhism” (p. 253). About 325 b.c. King Asoka com
manded his people to build hospitals for the poor, the sick,
and distressed, at each of the four gates of Patna and
throughout his dominions. The first Christian hospital
was built by a Roman lady named Fabiola, in the fourth
century a.d., so that it took some time for Christianity to
begin to develop this good fruit, though Egyptians, Greeks,
and Hindoos had long before shown the value of it. If it
were true that the world is indebted to Christianity for
benevolent institutions, it would be a sad reproach to the
supposed “ Heavenly Father,” who, until less than two
thousand years ago, failed to inspire his children with
active sympathy for those who required help. Were
“ God’s chosen people ” destitute of love and consideration
for their fellows ? Let the Old Testament answrer the
question.
(6) No doubt Christianity at one period gave an impetus
to art, and so it did to monkish lying chronicles. William
Hole, R.S.A., however, says: “Christianity brought about
the deterioration of Greek art....... In early centuries Chris-
�62
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY.
tianity tended generally to the decay of art. When it did
favour it, it was not through love of art, but for the sake of
religion ” (Address delivered before the Edinburgh Philo
sophical Institute, February 16th, 1892).
The assistance that culture has received from Christian
teachings is of a very doubtful character. Where in the
New Testament is culture inculcated ? We know that the
Christian Church destroyed much of the learning of Rome,
and plunged Europe into a state of mental darkness. For
centuries it monopolised, with a blighting force, the agencies
of intellectual training, with the result that the world was
cursed with what Lecky terms “ a night of mental and moral
darkness,” and he further adds: “Nearly all the greatest
intellectual achievements of the last three centuries have
been preceded and prepared by the growth of scepticism.
....... The splendid discoveries of physical science would
have been impossible but for the scientific scepticisms of the
school of Bacon........ Not till the education of Europe
passed from the monasteries to the universities, not till
Mohammedan science and classical Freethought and
industrial independence broke the sceptre of the Church,
did the intellectual revival of Europe begin ” (“ History of
Morals,” vol. ii., pp. 205 and 219).
�Books recommended to Students of the Subjects discussed in
the foregoing Pages.
Buckles “ History of Civilisation.” Especially chapters iv.—vii.
Professor Huxley’s “ Controverted Questions
and his reference to
Miracles in his “Life of Hume.”
Laing’s “Modern Science and Modern Thought,” “Problems of the
Future,” and “ Human Origins.”
Leslie Stephen’s “An Agnostic’s Apology.”
J. S. Mill’s “ On Liberty.”
Schmidt’s “ Social Aspects of Early Christianity.”
Draper’s “Conflict between Religion and Science.”
J. Cotter Morison’s “ The Service of Man.”
William Addis’s “ Christianity in the Roman Empire.”
Herbert Spencer’s “ First Principles.”
W. R. Greg’s “ The Creed of Christendom.”
Charles Bradlaugh’s “ Genesis.”
Evan Powell Meredith’s “The Prophet of Nazareth.”
Mosheim’s “Ecclesiastical History.”
Dr. Giles’s “ Hebrew and Christian Records.”
Dr. Irons’s “The Bible and its Interpreters.”
Rev. S. Davidson’s “ The Canon of the Bible.”
Professor Graham’s “ The Creed of Science.”
Karl Pearson’s “ The Grammar of Science.”
Lecky’s “ History of European Morals.” 2 vols.
Charles Watts’s “Was Christ a Political and Social Reformer?”
G. W. Foote’s “Flowers of Freethought.”
Constance E. Plumptre’s “ Natural Causation.”
��
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 claims of Christianity examined from a Rationalist standpoint
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 62, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Bibliography on unnumbered page at the end. Issued for the Rationalist Press Committee. Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (2003). 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
[1895]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1571
N662
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rationalism
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 claims of Christianity examined from a Rationalist standpoint), 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
Christianity-Controversial Literature
NSS
Rationalism
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/41fa78c743611bcef99ebed2b35d3fc8.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=NkuhllEWUZ89btLgsFG7ANP1KOGwC87GUBO0wrwWZfnIQ0%7ENciyeTgbXwvAmg-okw2CYaF3W%7EgMMeu0zlhqgzVNY1Fw%7EmNHCH-nxauiGd0og5RouqS3XqEYxaP2qSzoCn2cBtyMJt2XQ%7E3c5xRXN3gKrSk86dGCESTCYKvo-qwCybbviH5-oCCrhGuw2wum51tGUvzqsJzhATGdKxGjKMSOvmN76U8xnXwIYsWyULvd23CJC9ET2GZFg57as93Y0s0GA3O-I4%7EsprA5qqlG16sCmmJpfDjKBzhfCk6fX9YFY9nu1wgUHlGhetQNFsBL9Ln85LdEFBHB9C6TIFGqZDw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
15f83dad9d64cf22ec8b34b55326b43d
PDF Text
Text
B3l7°
KT62.8
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 1] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE,
[i«.
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
---------------------------------- ----------------------- - -------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- >.
♦
THE SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
Who was its author, when and where it was delivered, before
what audience, I do not care; the value of the discourse is no
greater though a great man uttered it; is no less, though the
production of a booby. If it descended or ascended from
heaven, it is no better or worse for that; if it sprung from
earth, or Purgatory, or Hell, that makes it no worse. If God
preached it, it is just as it is ; and you must admit no more
nor less, if the preacher was the Devil. If a Holy Ghost
inspired it, that does not enhance its value ; if a foul or filthy
spirit instigated its utterance, the sermon is no fouler or
cleaner for that. We may estimate the qualities' of' the
Author by those of the sermon ; but not those of the sermon
by those of the author.
Blessed are the poor in spirit (Matt, v., 3.) Poverty of
purse is bad enough; poverty of spirit is the condition of
fools, slaves, lunatics and idiots.—For theirs is the kingclo^
of heaven. What a blessed set, therefore, constitutes tm
kingdom of heaven! Wise men are excluded—by their
own choice, of course.
Blessed are they that mourn, for they shall be comforted
(v. 4). Common Sense says, Blessed are they who do not
need to be comforted,
word translated “blessed” all
through these “ beatitudes,” as they were piously and lacka
daisically denominated, should be rendered “ happy.’* The
*-Devised Version,” however, from which I quote, keeps the
old translation.
Perhaps the revisionists did not like to
expose their good book to ridicule. “ Happy are they that
mourn! ” To which I reply, Tall are they that are short !
7- at are they that are lean I Amen. It requires much grace
and divine enlightenment to understand a sermon, my
Brethren, and Sisters, specially when, like this on the Mount
�2
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
it abounds in absurdities. Not one of those who heard it
asked any questions ; discussion was not invited. And if they
had demanded an explanation, no doubt the good-natured
Jesus (if he was the preacher) would have mercifully damned
them for their impertinence.
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth (v. 5),
History abounds with proofs of this truth. The meek
Israelites expelled and murdered all the Canaanites they could,
and took possession of all their victims had owned. The
meek Romans conquered the world, or a great part of it; and
the exceedingly meek Danes, Jutes, Saxons, and others con
quered and peopled England. The meek English stole India
and other countries, as the meek Spaniards stole South
and Central America.
Jesus did not understand history.
Gentleness is the characteristic of a strong man who has
strength enough to be self-controlled and goodness sufficient
to direct his power to worthy ends ; but meekness is mental
and moral paralysis. Gentleness is a virtue, meekness a vice. •
The former is independence, the latter absolute slavery to the
priesthood.
Blessed^re they that hunger and thirst after righteousness
(v. 6). Nonsense! Blessed are the righteous is the proper
thing to say. People who hunger and thirst after righteous
ness usually do nothing else, poor things ; their double appe
tite feeds upon themselves, and they are weak and miserable
as children.with worms.
Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy (v. 7).
It is so sometimes, though very often the contrary happens.
After all, the just are better than the merciful, though both
are good.
Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God (v. 8).
The pure in heart are good, though not always happy. They
will never see God, though. 1. If God is infinite, he can
never be seen, for there is no place where we could stand to
see him. 2. If . seen, he is not infinite. The pure in heart
have their own reward, and no more need a sight of God than
I do a sight of the Queen.
Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the sons
of God (v. 9), This is a joke equal to another I will perpe
trate : Blessed are the members of the Peace Society: for they
shall be called the sons of Alexander the Great, Juljps Casar,
Napoleon, Bismarck, Beaconsfield, or Bartie Frty. When
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
3
did God ever make peace or prevent war ? When was there
ever a war his servants did not ascribe to him ?
Blessed are they that have been persecuted for righteousness'
sake ; for theirs is the kingdom of heaven (v. 10). Then perse
cution also is a good thing ? If so, the persecutors ought to
be blessed too. To be persecuted is a nuisance, a great evil,
a shame, a disgrace to civilisation. And if the persecuted
have no compensation except the kingdom of heaven, their
case is more hopeless than that of the followers of Don Carlos
or of Jefferson Davis.
As for people now-a-days being persecuted and slandered
for the sake of Jesus, the conception is too grotesque for dis
cussion. It is his pretended and pretentious followers who
do all the persecution; and the kingdom of heaven consists,
not of victims, but of stupid and brutal persecutors. If the
“persecuted for righteousness’ sake” are to obtain a great
reward for their endurance, Hurrah 1 I mean, Hallelujah ! we
shall get the prize, and our Christian persecutors will go------ .
I do not know what will become of them.
Jesus says, “They so persecuted the prophets” (v. 11).
What prophets ? This preacher must have referred to a
different Old Testament from ours. The old Israelitish pro
phets were bitter persecutors when opportunity occurred;
but none of them suffered persecution, strictly so named.
To encourage persecution itself is not much worse than to
encourage its endurance by calling the persecuted happy.
The good teacher does his best to inculcate manliness and
justice, which will, in time, render persecution impossible.
, Matt. v.— Ye are the salt of the earth (v. 13). If Christians
ever were the salt of the earth, they must soon have lost
"their savor : as far as we can trace them back they have been
the world’s “ bitters,” witjtOut being anywise its tonics. Or
■—let me see ! Salt of the earth ! In large quantities salt
renders soil absolutely barren. And wherever Christianity
has reigned in unchecked sway, there has been a general
dearth of all good things. Ye are the light of the world. A
city set on a hill cannot be hid(y. 14). This was no doubt
intended to produce modesty, Those poor illiterate disciples
of an equally ignorant master were the light of the world!
Look at the Science, Philosophy and Art of the world, and
ask how much of it all is due to Jesus and his followers.
�4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Christianity never shed a ray of light upon anything. Its
lantern is a dark one, having neither wick nor oil.
No let your light shine before men, that they may see your
good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven (v. 16).
Let your rushlights shine, that men may honor the sun.
Amen.
What nonsense, to call upon twelve boobies to
confer honor upon an infinite being! If the Father in heaven
knew the rubbish his only begotten son was spouting on earth,
he would have shown his good sense to have corrected him.
It says little for that parent’s fatherly qualities that his
children behave so badly as they do. Worse behaved beings
than sons and daughters of God there never were—ignorance,
insolence and brutality are their usual characteristics; and
they are just like their father. Think not that I came to
destroy the law or theprophets(v. 17).—No, no, Jesus, youhadnot
the power, your countrymen still cling to them and leave your
doctrines and religion alone.—I came not to destroy, but to
fulfil. How fulfil ? To keep, do you mean ? To obey ? If
so, the Christian Church sorely misunderstands you. What
Jesus says about heaven and earth passing away is nonsense;
but what he says about those who disobey Moses and the
prophets shows him to be a Jew, not a Christian, and puts all
Christians in the wrong—if he was right. Jesus knew no
other law than that of Moses, no other inspired book than
the Jewish Scriptures, he never hinted that any other was
needed or would be written ; yet his professed followers have
almost superseded the Old Testament by the New, as they
supersede the New Testament by their creeds, confessions,
catechisms, and theological writings.
Jesus next proceeds to improve upon Moses, though he
above said he came only to fulfil. “ Thou shalt not kill,”
said Moses—though he was frightfully fond himself of killing.
Thou shalt nof be angry with thy brother, says Jesus; to be so,
thou shalt be in danger of the Judgment, or local petty court.
2/ thou say, Haca to thy brother, thou shalt be in danger of the
Council, the Sanhedrim, or the highest Jewish court; and to
call thy brother a fool, shall expose thee to hell fire ! (v. 21, 22).
Thus, it is bad to be angry, worse to say Baca, but a
damnable thing to call a brother a fool. Yet Jesus and Paul
did not hesitate to call people fools. I hope they are not
damned. If your brother is a fool, and gives you good reason
to tell him so, do it. It may open his eyes and lead to
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
a
improvement. The clergy usually try to give the word
“fool ” here some deep and mysterious and dreadful meaning,
in order to justify Jesus in his absurd denunciation of it; but
it means nothing worse than fool. It may be an impropriety
to call a foolish brother, or even a neighbor, a fool, but it is
not a crime.
As to offering gifts at the altar (v. 23, 24), had Jesus been
wise, he would not have sanctioned but condemned the
miserable superstition. Gifts are offered at the altar which
ought frequently to be paid as just debts to debtors ; in every
case it is disgraceful to waste upon gods what men, women
and children so much need for their life.
Agree with thine adversary quickly, etc. (v. 25). Surely
this ought to depend upon the justice of the case. If men
can honestly avoid law and lawyers, they are great fools to
have any connexion with them ; but there are many cases
when a man must be a coward and a fool to agree with his
adversary. Though if Jesus had agreed with his adversaries,
or even had made any rational defence before Pilate, he pro
bably would not have gone to the cross.
The 27th and 28th verses are simply atrocious, for they
condemn every healthy man that ever lived, and would, if
they could be obeyed, depopulate the earth. Licentiousness
is bad ; asceticism is a thousand times worse. Verses 29 and
31 are most brutal, and their moral tendency debasing in the
extreme. To fear hell at all is barbaric, to fear it to the
extent of mutilating oneself or its equivalent is brutalising.
Had Jesus been a married man he might have spoken
(v. 32) with some authority on the subject of divorce. None
of his utterances on the sexual relationships are at all edifying.
There are just causes of divorce ; a divorce which is not a
perfect divorce ought never to be effected ; when once effected,
the parties ought to be as free to marry again as bachelors
and spinsters.
What Jesus says respecting perjury and swearing (v. 33—
37) I entirely endorse, except that about the Evil One. To
swear is folly. A man that cannot be bound by a promise,
cannot be bound by an oath. But it is amusing to note how
Christians send Jesus to Coventry when it suits them. Their
conduct and teaching on oaths are the most perfect hypocrisy
that could be conceived. In most respects they are to-day, as
the result of purely secular influences, immeasurably superior
�6
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to their Master ; in respect to the oath business they are as
far behind him. In that respect they are false, hypocritical
and brutal. If they had their way, they would depopulate
the world for the sake of their superstitions.
Resist not evil (Matt. v. 39). What must we resist then ?
Must we resist good ? Jesus seems to have been unable to
run from one extreme without rushing to the opppsite. Re
taliation, in most cases, may be foolish and wrong ; no general
rule can cover all cases. But non-resistance of evil is the
best way to encourage it. There is “a law in our members,”
much older and much more potent, which tells us to resist
evil with all our might—viz., the law of self-preservation.
And Jesus was as much under the force of that law as other
people. He nevei' turned the other cheek (v. 39), but gave
cheek for cheek whenever opportunity occurred. So did his
disciples. And his followers have always been more ready to
smite than be smitten.
Let him have thy cloak also (v. 40). Jesus was too poor to
know the value of clothes, hence this stupid rule of life.
Here, too, we have a most direct and thorough encouragement
to dishonesty. People are too fond of law as it is ; what
would be the state of society if every rogue who stole a coat
could get the owner’s cloak too by simply suing him ?
Verses 39—42 of this Sermon on the Mount are amply
sufficient, if put into practice, to destroy civilisation and
reduce mankind to a state of anarchy and violence. For
tunately, professing Christians have always, with an exception
or two, been more ready to steal than to throw away their
property, more ready to compel others to walk the “miles ”
than do it themselves. Bad as this is, it is better than what
Jesus taught.
Love your enemies (v. 44)—that you may be the children of
your Father which is in heaven (v. 45). No man can love his
enemy. The father in heaven cannot do it, or he would long
since have hugged and caressed the Devil. Jesus did not do
it, or he would have turned those stones into bread, as the
Devil requested him when they met in the wilderness. “' Do
good to them that hate you ! ” By what law ? It is con
trary to reason and nature both. Someone asked Confucius
what he had to say “ Concerning the principle that injury
should be recompensed with kindness ? ”—It was a very old
superstition, evidently—Confucius replied, “With what then
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
will you recompense kindness ? Recompense injury with
justice, and kindness with kindness.” That is good philo
sophy ; the language of Jesus is babyish.
He maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and
sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust (v. 45). He does
nothing of the sort. The sun doesn’t rise ; it is the earth
that spins round in front of him, like a leg of mutton before
the fire. And if God did this work, he also makes his sun
scorch good and bad alike, and sends rains or drought indis
criminately. If we followed the heavenly father’s example,
no day would pass without our doing much mischief and
murdering more or fewer persons. Better leave him alone.
What reward have ge ? (v. 46—47). Just so. Jesus was
enslaved to the barbarous philosophy of rewards and punish
ments, and his followers have never grown out of it. The
Christian is taught to expect a reward for everything. If he
gives away money in charity, it is to get riches in heaven ; if he
spends his money upon church and chapel building, it is to get
an endless annuity in the New Jerusalem, or to be insured against
the unquenchable fire ; and those who hangfire at parting
with their cash are gravely assured that they will be “ recom
pensed at the resurrection of the just ”—the date of which
will be about the time the sky falls.
Take heed that ye do not your alms before men (Matt, vi., 1).
Christians read this the other way, viz. : Take heed to do
your alms before men, to be seen of them. They boast of what
they give out of their abundance and taunt us with not giving
what we do not possess. They accept challenges to debate at
times, on condition that the proceeds shall go to some charity,
not at all caring if we should be compelled to apply for charity
as a consequence of having to work for nothing. If Christians
were half as good as they pretend, they would be too good to
pretend at all; and if Christians would leave off wasting,
and robbing, and swindling, all would have enough, and
charity would no longer be needed.
When thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites (Note,
Hypocrites meant originally an actor) ; for they love to pray,
standing in churches and chapels and in the corners of the
sti eets, that they may be seen of men (v. o).
Here I improve
both the translation and the original.
How many cf the
parsons would ever pray if no man or woman were by to
hear ?
J
�BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Verily, I say unto you, They have their reward. True!
True! ranging from £50 per aunum to £15,000 and per
quisites. Not bad renumeration for actors in religious theatres.
But when ye pray, do not jabber like foreigners, etc. (v. 7).
I make the orthodox commentators a present of this rendering ;
it exactly gives the sense. A paraphrase is:—Don’t jabber
away like foreigners landed on a strange coast, who utter a
multitude of words in the hope of being able to make the
natives understand them. All the orthodox commentators
have missed the point of the advice. And most parsons have
a sort of regulation time for prayer, hoping that their God
will answer a long prayer, though he won’t a short one. In
fact, they treat their deity exactly like dishonest beggars
do their victims—they try the virtues of unlimited blarney.
Were I a god, I would much more readily relieve the Atheist
who never asks for anything than those who make a trade of
prayer—that is, begging. There are laws against begging,
but none against praying; which shows that Christian states
respect the public more than their God.
Your father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye
ask him (v. 8). He is a poor father, then, to wait to be
prayed to before doing his duty. It is a father’s duty to see
that his children have their wants supplied whether they ask
or not. The great father in heaven should spend a fortnight
at some well-conducted house to learn the ways of civilised
people. If he did this, he would burn the Bible and order
a new one, this time not written by his amanuenses, but
by men who could teach him more than all eternity has been
able to do.
The prayer that follows as a model, the Lord’s prayer, has
about all the faults a prayer can have, probably, except length.
There the pious pray for a kingdom to come. All just
government grows. We don’t want foreign rule, though we
can have no objection to God’s will being done on earth as in
heaven, because it is not done there at all. Men should work
for their daily bread, not pray for it. Forgive our debts, as
we forgive our debtors. If Christians believed in “ a prayer
answering god,” they would be afraid to pray thus : for they
do not forgive, and so, in effect, they ask not to be forgiven.
They are the most unforgiving of all people, being inspired
perhaps by the great father who will burn his enemies with
unquenchable fire. To pray not to be led into temptation, is
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
9
wise, if the Bible be true; for God tempted Abram to murder
his son, David to number Israel, etc. But to ask to be de
livered from the Evil One, is like a frightened child begging
his father to keep away the black man the nurse has been
speaking of.
Your father will forgive you, if you forgive others ; he
won’t if you don’t. Good example. Sublime morality!
You are to be perfect as your father (chap, v., 48), and he
threatens to be imperfect if you are so ! That is, you can
make him just what you will, forgiving or malicious, good or
bad; for his conduct is regulated by yours This is the very
highest point in New Testament morality!.
The directions Jesus gives (Matt, vi., 16—18) for fasting are
good enough, supposing fasting were itself of any conceivable
use. The only parties who ought to fast are they who have
eaten too much or whose health may probably be improved
by a short period of abstinence. Fasting as now practised in
Christendom is sheer hypocrisy. And as Christians do not
now honestly practise it, no more need be said, but that
•Christians would get far greater good by a little healthy
honesty than by all “the means of grace ” they employ.
The rest of Matthew vi., 19—34, is so openly antagonistic
both to civilisation and to clerical conduct, that the wonder
is modern Christians have not long since repudiated it as
•contrary to their religion :—
1. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth (v. 19).
The best of Christians obey this by laying up all they can
upon earth.
2. But lay up............. treasures in heaven (v. 20). Many
Christians would do this too, but they know not where heaven
is. They would not object to treasures here and hereafter
both ; but having no prospect of heaven, and being wedded
as closely to the earth as any misers, they make sure of earthly
treasures, and trust in providence for the others.
3. For where your treasure is there will your heart be also
(v. 21). No people love the world more fully than Christians ;
and the “ love of the father,” of course, “ is not in them.”
What Jesus says of the single eye and the light of the
body (v. 22—23) may be ignored : he understood neither
physiology nor optics, nor was he any better instructed in
moral rights and obligations. He uttered rules, proverbs and
commands, which his followers are ever praising and ever
�10
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
deliberately breaking, and must break, or renounce civilisa
tion.
No man can serve two masters............. God and Mammon,
for example (v. 24). Another blunder. The clergy can serve
God and Mammon first rate. The first step is, perhaps, Hie
most difficult. You renounce the world in your baptism,
that is, your godfathers and godmothers do it for you, as
theirs did for them. This is all you need to do. Henceforth
you are safe ; your baptism regenerates you, and the “ new
man ” serves Mammon and God with the most perfect
assiduity for all the rest of life. If in any case God should
grumble at the rivalry of Mr. Mammon, he is politely kicked
out of doors, and Mammon reigns supreme. Jesus was not
half so clever as his followers ; the parsons could put him up
to many a dodge were he now on earth.
Take no thought for your life—neither for food nor raiment
(v. 25). This is the language of a pure barbarian or maniac.
The commentators say, “anxious thought,” “undue thought,”
etc. There is nothing in the gospels to authorise them.
Jesus never inculcates the duty of industry ; but here he
enjoins an absolute indifference for all worldly pursuits. The
fowls (26) are to be your model as regards providing food—
and they neither sow nor reap nor garner: but your heavenly
father feedeth them and will much more feed you, for you
are much better. And why care about clothes ? The lilies
are clothed by providence ; how much more will he clothe
you ? To all except perverse divines this language is so plain
that one wonders even at their temerity in trying to reconcile
it with common sense. But Jesus points it still more :—Can
you, by taking thought, add a cubit to your height? The
answer is obvious. Neither can you get food or clothes by
“ taking thought.” “ Therefore take no thoughtetc. (v. 31).
The Gentiles take thought; they seek food and clothes. But
you have a heavenly father who knows all about what you
need ; and if you only seek his kingdom and righteousness,
he will see to it that all your wants are supplied.
Good father!—How is it nobody trusts him ? I should
like to see a community founded on the principles of the
Sermon on the Mount. The bishops might take the lead in
such an undertaking. They have the best security. They
have a father who is all-good and almighty. He says he will
supply all their needs if they will seek first his kingdom, etc.
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
11
Their is neither bishop nor pastor who believes it. In that
they show their scepticism and good sense. They are
infidels—that is, unfaithful to their own professed principles;
we are infidels in a better sense—viz., we.no more believe the
truth and wisdom of Jesus’s teaching than they do, and we
say so'much. For our honesty we shall be damned, while
they will be saved for their hypocrisy. So be it.
Take therefore no thought for the morrow; for the morrow
shall take thought for the things of itself (v. 34). Confucius
said : “ If a man takes no thought about what is distant, he
will find sorrow near at hand.” If Jesus had taken thought
for the morrow he would have had a place “to lay his head
he would not have been poorer than foxes, as he admitted,
nor would he have gone hunger-bitten to the fig-tree and
cursed it for bearing no figs out of season.
Still there is in the world to-day something much worse
than even the fanaticism of Jesus or his poor insanity, and
that is the miserable cant, found even amongst Unitarians and
a few Freethinkers, which affects to admire and eulogise the
character and wisdom of the teachings of Jesus ! If those
panegyrists are honest they do not understand what they do;
if they understand, they xare veritable hypocrites. Every
enlightened man does habitually, and as a consequence of his
enlightenment, the very things Jesus condemned. He never
more plainly condemned adultery or murder than he did social
prudence and industry.
The early Christians understood their master as I now do,
and it was only the stern reality of life which showed them
how false and pernicious his doctrines are. Cave, in • his
“ Primitive Christianity,” p. 230, says : “ They never met
with opportunities to have advanced and enriched themselves,
but they declined and turned them off with a noble scorn.”
Origen, he says, obeyed the precept not to have two coats, to
wear shoes, nor to be (anxiously) careful for the morrow ”
(p. 242). Cave invents “anxiously ” here. “Nay,” says he,
“ so little kindness had they for this world, that they cared
not how little they stayed in it; and, therefore, readily offered
themselves for martyrdom at every turn ” (p. 246-7). This
agrees with Tertullian : Calamities, etc., “ injure us not; ing
the first place, because we have no further concern with th?
world than how we may most quickly depart from it ’
(“Apology,” c. xii.)
�12
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
When modem Christians exchange cant and hypocrisy for
truth and honesty they will either follow and obey Jesus in
reality or else openly renounce him. Which will they do ?
Judge not that ye be not judged. For with what judgment
7 e judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye
J
mete, it shall be measured to you again. (Matt, vii., 1).__
Harsh judgments and censorious comments ought to be
avoided ; but honest judgment is one of the best means of
moral education, and moral education cannot be obtained
without it. Besides, no one ever violated this rule more than
Jesus himself. He judged and condemned in many cases ;
nor did he ever. make it appear that he understood the im
portance or the justice of a fair and open trial. Had he been
wise and good, he would have given some hint, at least,
respecting the forms and administration of justice. The codes
of civilised nations owe nothing to Jesus or to his religion.
His conceptions of justice and law were those of any petty
Oriental despot.
The mote and the shaft—spear-shaft—in the eyes consti
tute a figure of speech grotesquely overdone, and ridiculous
into the bargain. Who with a mote in his eye would wait
for some one to ask to extract or remove it ?—while a spear
shaft in the eye means the destruction of the organ and the
death of the owner.
It was not charity, but bitter and coarse satire, which
inspired what he says about giving holy things to dogs and
casting pearls before swine (v. 6, 7). If men are dogs and
swine, it must be because God made them so, that is Jesus, if
he was God. Why sneer at his own handiwork ? Why not
make them better ?
Ask and it shall be given you (v. 7, 8). If this were true,
how rich and prosperous and powerful the Church would be 1
How soon the world would be converted! How quickly they
would hear and see the last of the Freethinker and its wicked
crew. All the prayers in the world—I mean the Church—
cannot stop these Atheistic sermons, nor confound the preacher.
Let them try. Ask and receive ! The parson prays to God
and receives from men. Their prayers, indeed, are mostly
intended for human ears; and those that do not reach human
ears are never answered. The Church has never been
ashamed to beg, and it has got a million-fold more than it
has deserved. When the orthodox confess themselves un
�SERMON ON THE MOUNT.
13
worthy, we agree with them, and when most of them confess
themselves “miserable offenders,” we cannot but admit the
justice of the plea.
The contrast (v. 9—12) between earthly fathers and the
heavenly one is all in favor of the former. Most earthly
parents do something for their children ; the heavenly father
does nothing. By the way, how can a man have two fathers,
unless one is merely grandfather or father in a merely legal
or social sense ? If, then, we have earthly fathers, we have
no heavenly one.
Beware offalse prophets (v. 15). Amen. Amen. All pro
phets are false prophets. Truth is found only by experience,
not revelation. All pretenders to revelation are false prophets:
beware of them and their sermons and gospels and predictions.
All those who follow them only repeat the original lies. And
revelation lies have filled the world with confusion, bitterness
and blood.
They come in sheep’s clothing—good broad-cloth made of
wool; but they dress in many ways. Ye shall know them bu
their fruits (v. 16). Yes, yes ! What has revelation, what
have its prophets, done for man ? All the world’s science,
government, philosophy, sanitation, medicine, are due to the
prophet’s enemies. No prophet ever revealed a pregnant
truth that enriched or enlightened the world. To prophets
we owe persecution and darkness ; to secular workers and
thinkers we owe all the knowledge and all the wealth of the
world. By their fruits ye shall know them—if they bear any.
The bishops are barren, the Church is a desert, and the
parsons ever cry, “ Give, give !” We hope Jesus’ prophecy is
correct, that the useless trees shall be hewn down and cast
into the fire. Then the churches are doomed. They bear
no good fruit; they cumber the ground and produce poison.
If none but those who do the will of the father (v. 21—-24)
enter into the kingdom of heaven, there are few destined to
enter. There is no parson or priest now existing that con
forms his life to the Bible, and that is generally called the
will oi’ word of God. Who, then, will people the kingdom of
heaven ? I fancy the standard will have to be altered or the
kingdom will never be anything but a kingdom on paper.
And those who don’t go to that kingdom must, if popular
theology is correct, people the Devil’s kingdom. I have no
respect for the Devil, or his empire ; but he is going to beat
�14
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
the other gentleman. Not only most people belong to him,
bnt all the best are his. The parsons cannot question this,
for they belong to the Devil as much as I do, and they serve
him as heartily too. In face of existing facts, the kingdom of
heaven must be pronounced a complete failure, and its effects
are not worthy of a sale by auction. You, Jesus, need not
make the gate so narrow. Nobody will enter even if you
make a large gap in the fence.
The peroration (v. 24—29) of the Sermon on the Mount is
a splendid one. It fairly rises to the height of true oratory.
But it is awfully selfish and egoistic, besides being maliciously
unjust and severe. Who can do those sayings of thine, Jesus ?
Who can love his enemies ? Who can follow the example of
fowls and lilies ? Who can turn the other cheek, or give his
cloak to the thief who steals his coat ? If thine own rule is to
be the law, thou thyself art hopelessly condemned. There.' is
nought but destruction and ruin in store for thyself and thy
hearers and readers, if thy sermon is the standard of judg
ment. That sermon would damn all men, women and chil
dren ; all angels, archangels, seraphs, and cherubs ; and God
the Father, Son and Holy Ghost will be damned with the
rest; for there is not a being in the world who does or ever
did obey what it enjoins. And yet the orthodox belaud what
must damn them and all. I wonder if they’ll boast of that
sermon when it has damned them ?
THE
LORD’S
MERCIES.
“ The Lord is good to all; and his tender mercies are over all
his works.”—Psalm cxlv., 9.
This, be it remembered, is not an empty boast. The Psalmist
understood the matter well, being inspired by the Holy Spirit.
He did not, as sceptical and profane persons would have done,
look at the world and carnally survey the deeds and vicissi
tudes of life ; he piously closed his eyes, and thus saw plainly
that the Lord was “ good to all, and that his tender mercies
were over all his works.” The pious king—when have kings
not been pious?—adopted the only possible method of dis
covering that the Lord was good to all, etc., he saw it by
faith, as any one may who has faith enough.
�THE LORD’S MERCIES.
15
But this sdfelime and salutary and universally comforting
truth may be .proved to a demonstration.
I. The Lord is almighty, and can do whatsoever he will.
He can make two and two to be seven, or turn a summer
sault, or turn himself inside out, if you give him time enough
to do it in—that is, all time. He made all things in six days
the very first time he ever tried, and could no doubt do it in
six minutes now, were he so inclined. I mention these facts
to show that the Lord is quite able to do everything.
II. He is all-knowing too ; and so, in point of knowledge,
as well as power, perfectly competent to execute goodness and
extend his tender mercies to all.
III. Historical proofs may now be given of the above truth ;
and these are so numerous that we can merely select a few
out of an almost infinite miscellany.
1. He made a man and woman and put them into a garden,
where there was a^iree they were not to eat of on pain of
death. He also made a “ subtil ” serpent who tempted the
two to eat, and they did eat.” For this the Lord cursed
the pair, the serpent, and the very earth. All the posterity
of this couple were involved in their parents’ fate, and are to
this day doomed to pain, toil, want, sickness, misery, and
death for that old crime of eating forbidden fruit! This is
the first proof of divine goodness and tender mercies.
2. Less than 2,000 years later, when men were numerous
and not over good in their conduct, the Lord resolved to show
how far he could excel them all in criminality and cruelty.
There was not a man then living who would, if he could,
have drowned the whole world. But the Lord showed his
goodness by pouring down 1,000,000,000 (one thousand
million) cubic miles of water upon the earth, or two thirds of
a cubic mile for every man, woman, and child now in the
world ! So abundantly plentiful was the supply that each
man might have truly said with the grateful Psalmist, My
cup runneth over ”—if he could have spoken after being
drowned. It is true, the story says that eight persons were
saved in this universal deluge ; but they might just as well
have been drowned for any good we know of them. The
water, by the way, was so plentiful that it seems to have dis
gusted Mr. Noah, who broke the pledge and went out on the
spree as soon as he could get anything to tipple upon.
3. Not to confine his exhibition of tender mercies to a
�No. 5 ] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
;
BY
JOSEPH
SYMES,
.
.
[W.
_■
3
/' V?'
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS,
And Noah . . . drank of the wine and was drunken (Gen.
lx., 20-21).—(1) Teetotallers pretend that some Bible wines
were not intoxicating ; but most were, or people might have
drunk them with impunity. The Bible was not written by
abstainers, nor was total abstinence ever contemplated by God,
except for a few peculiar people. (2) Noah was a saint, and
so it was no disgrace for him to get drunk and expose himself
as he did. (8) The verses of this chapter numbered twentytwo—twenty-seven are a curiosity. Ham, Noah’s youngest
son, saw the beastly conduct of the old man ; and Noah, when
he found it out, vented his curses upon Canaan, Ham’s son !
This was written by some unscrupulous Israelite to justify his
countrymen in exterminating the Canaanites. The roguery
is too transparent to be misunderstood—it is the assassin
endeavoring to stand well before those who know of his crime.
Suppose Noah had cursed Canaan for what Ham did! That
would stamp him an idiot. Besides, when did this happen ?
There were only eight human beings in the ark (1 Peter iii-,,
20). Canaajn was Ham’s fourth son, and could not have been
. old enough to have mocked or insulted his grandfather till
many years after the flood, though the story implies that it
. was not long after that event. What an ill-tempered old
grandfather Noah must have been to vent his spleen upon his
grandson, if he really did thus; and how much more illtempered and diobolical God must have been to execute Noah’s
curse upon Canaan’s innocent posterity so many hundreds of
years after the death of Noah ! No gods were ever much to
boast of; but the Jewish-Christian idol is worse than all the
others rolled into one. Besides, how stupid of him to save
�66
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE
such a paltry lot as Noah, and his family when drowning the
world! Any sensible god would have made a clean sweep
both, of animals and men, if he had proceeded as far as Genesis
describes, and then have started de novo with better races,
fashioned on an improved plan and made of better materials.
But this God is par excellence the God of blunders and
blunderers. Still, the Bible is anything but “ a comedy of
errors
it is a tragedy in which few but mad gods, mad pro
phets, mad angels, fools and helpless wretches bear their parts.
Homer’s Iliad turns upon the wrath of Achilles, and the Bible
upon the fury, the very fermented wine or expressed juice of,
the wrath of God.
Genesis x. and its pretended pedigrees of the nations may
be jumped over, for no doubt the writer, some very late scribe,
invented the names. Anybody could invent pedigrees, I
presume. Noah, I just this moment learn by inspiration,
had other sons in the ark with him. One of them ate a man
for his dinner, and they called him Man Chew. Was he not
the father of all those who dwell in Manchuria unto this
day ?
A nd the whole earth was of one language and of one speech
(Genesis xi., 1). Just so. This is a precious fragment of
the word of God. “ Read, mark, learn,” my reader, -‘and
digest.” .Men would build a tower—(why not?)—whose top
should reach to heaven—(well, Jacob’s ladder did)—so that
should there be another flood, they might climb the tower
and escape drowning ! Very sensible project I should say ;
but God viewed it in a totally different light. What! not
allow him to drown them when he felt disposed to have a
little sport that way ! Imagine, my reader, the feelings of
an angler, if all fishes united to wear wire respirator-things
or mouth screens, to defend them against hooks ! Fancy the
feelings of butchers, were sheep and oxen to adopt invulner
able armor that no weapon could pierce!
Conceive the
chagrin of fowlers and sportsmen, were all birds to use shot
proof dresses! Then you may comprehend in some faint
degree the chagrin, the fury of God when his creature man,
whom he had made for his own private and exclusive sport,
proved daring enough to unite to defeat his ends by building
a tower whose top should reach to heaven ! If the earth had
exploded like a modern bombshell, it would not have startled
and amazed him half as much!
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
67
And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower (Genesis
xi., 5).—In those days the Lord had no angels to go and come
for him, and so he went on his own errands. Later he made
angels; and then he hit upon a better expedient still—he
expanded himself until he filled all space. The Christians
still entreat him to come down into their temples and
dwellings, but he never heeds them. On this occasion he
went to see the wonderful city and tower, just as you might
go to the Fisheries Exhibition. But the sight alarmed him 1
And he exclaimed, when he saw the works, “Now nothing
will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to
do 1” In plain words, that means that Jehovah was really
afraid that men would raise the tower to heaven, and so secure
themselves against another flood! How extremely childish
this is must be apparent to all. The Lord is and always has
been in his dotage.
Therefore all must be children who
would go and dwell with him, “ for of such is the kingdom of
heaven.” Strong-minded men and women are not wanted
there.
The Lord having no engines by which to destroy the tower
—thunderbolts and earthquakes not having been invented—
undertook to confound the language of men, so that they
should not understand each other. The results were awful.
“Mortar!” shouted a bricklayer; and up came a hod of
bricks.
“Bricks!” cried another, and up went a hod of
mortar. “Bring up that plank!” shouted a third; and up
went a can of tea. A mason dubbed his man a blockhead,
and the man felt delighted at the compliment, and fully
expected higher wages on Saturday.
The architect gave
orders to push on as fast as possible with the building, for the
sky seemed threatening rain. Therefore, the master mason
gave instructions to his men to pull down the left wing and
rebuild it better. The men misunderstood him, and walled
up several of the windows. No two men spoke alike. If a man
said “Good morning,” to his fellow, his fellow thought he
called him names. Then they fought to assist their mutual
understanding. Things went on like this for two days, when
the whole world dissolved partnership, and supposing the
tower and its vicinity bewitched, all spontaneously left it,
rushing away to every point of the compass, some of them
never stopping till they met on the opposite side of the world.
The Lord and his party went back to heaven, climbing the
�68
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
unfinished tower, and stepping from its walls into paradise,
where they laughed till the universe shook again, at the
wonderful success of their joke.
And the Lord played a worse joke still some 1,800 to 1,900
years ago. He gave the world a revelation of his supreme
will, throwing together scraps of his autobiography, history,
romance, poetry, mythology, statistics, ritual, law, agriculture,
cosmogony, ethics, politics, criminal jurisprudence, lies,nonsense,
pointless jokes, puns, platitudes, false philosophy. This he
put together in a book called the Bible, and would have
printed if he had known how. And the result ? The
churches have been fighting about the meaning of this book
ever since—“ they rest not day and night ” praising the book
and quarrelling about its teachings. In this contest reason is
never allowed to intrude. Theological language is always at
sixes and sevens. Millions upon millions of human lives have
been destroyed to prove how divine and precious is the Bible ;
it has perverted the best and noblest sentiments of human
nature and social life ; it has confounded all those who have
endeavored to follow its lead ; it is a will-o’-the-wisp, an ignis
fatuus—a maze, a labyrinth, a whirlpool, in the midst of
which men neither understand themselves nor their
neighbors.
Another leap, and we find ourselves in the company of
Abram or Abraham, son of Terah and friend of God. The
very best parts of Abram’s biography are not in the Bible. I
beg to suggest that the gentlemen who meet in the Jerusalem
Chamber, Westminster Abbey, to improve the Bible, should
insert the Rabbinical stories of Abram and other saints, for
such additions, even if much that is now in the book should
be omitted to make room for them, will enhance the value of
the word of God a hundredfold.
Abram’s father was Terah and also Azer or the planet Mars ;
likewise Zarah and Athar. It is not every man who can
boast of five or six fathers. Abram’s father—(I relate the
story from memory)—lived in high honor at the court of
Nimrod ; and a prophecy went forth that a son of Terah
should dethrone the king.
Therefore his wife, reflecting
that Nimrod would destroy their new child, should it be a
boy, removed out of the town and took up her residence for
safety in a cave. There Abram was born. To make doubly
sure, his mother did not mention the event even to her hus
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS
6fl
band ; and she spent as little time in the cave as possible, to
avoid suspicion. Abram was a remarkable boy for his age,
and grew wonderfully fast. At fifteen months old he was as
big as an ordinary boy of fifteen years. And “ on what meats
did this our Abram feed, that he was grown so great ?”
There lies the point of the whole case. He merely sucked—
his thumbs or his fingers ! Don’t be sceptical; the Lord was
in those digits of Abram, just as he was in the burning bush
of Moses, as he is in a salvation drum, or the hallelujah beer
sold at the Eagle.”
Things turning out so unexpectedly, Mrs. Terah thought it
time to tell her husband ; and one evening she conducted
him to the cave on a visit to their extremely interesting son.
Lest any should doubt the divine truth I am relating, I will
mention an incident that took place a few months back at
Euston Station. I was in the waiting-room waiting for the
midnight train to Birmingham, my companions being a young
lady, and a gentleman with a little boy, apparently of four or
five years. He was running about the room. And his father
remarked to the young lady, “ That’s a wonderful child.
How old do you think he is ?” She said, “ Four years, per
haps.” “ He is only four months old,” replied the father ;
I am just come from Canada with him. Don’t you think
he is a wonderful child ?” I asked him if he had not made a
mistake ; and he solemnly assured me that the child was only
four months old. I gave in, thinking this child, like some in
Palestine in former days, might have been filled with the
Holy Ghost from his birth. Besides I reflected that I had no
means of proving that he was more than four months old ;
and if he had said four weeks, I should have been equally
silenced.
Your fathers dwelt on the other side oj the flood in old time,
even Terah, the father of Abraham, and the father of Nachor :
and they served other gods (Joshua xxiv., 2).—It is a long jump
from Genesis xi. to Joshua xxiv., no doubt, but the subject is
the same. The child Abraham, as previously reported, grew
at a marvellous rate ; and his mother took his father to see
the prodigy. Terah was a courtier, a class of men often
enough very cunning, but rarely remarkable for knowledge or
wisdom. Now when Terah saw his son he deemed it best to
present him at court, for although he knew there was some
danger in that step, he thought there would be much more
�BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
should Nimrod discover that he was hiding such a child from
him. So he and his wife resolved to take him home at once.
Terah soon found that his son was intellectually no less
wonderful than he was physically. On the road home the
precocious youth bored his father about the nature of the
gods, and which was the right and the true one. Terah’s
answers were anything but satisfactory, for Abraham seemed
determined to probe matters to the utmost. How he had
learnt to talk and reason the story does not say ; perhaps the
Holy Ghost could tell you if he would. However, he spoke
with such good effect that his poor father was thrown into
quite a perspiration, and foresaw trouble at the court of
Nimrod. Abraham was no courtier, and had no modesty to
check his impertinence; and Terah plainly foresaw that he
would as soon dispute with Nimrod as a chimney-sweep. Arti
ficial distinctions were unknown to this overgrown child, and
he was no more abashed in the presence of Nimrod than a
sensible man would be before the shadow of monarchy remain
ing in this country. Nimrod was as much confounded
Abraham as the Jewish rabbis were at a later date by the
twelve-year-old Jesus. And, of course, the king resolved on
vengeance, especially as Abraham scouted his gods.
But here I am met by a difficulty. There is no sort of
doubt at all that Nimrod did his uttermost to win the crown
of martyrdom for Abraham, and would have succeeded, had
not a miracle most inopportunely sprung up to rob him of that
eternal honor. But for that untoward miracle, Abraham would
have had the honor of figuring in the calendar as the young
martyr of only fifteen months old, who was put to death by
Nimrod because he could not withstand the wisdom with
which he spake. But it is not very clear why Abraham was
to be martyred; whether it was for confounding the king
before his whole court, or for another reason, does not clearly
appear. The better account of the two is this, substantially.
Terah was either a manufacturer of idols oi’ else he had charge
of Nimrod’s pantheon, where all the principal idols were kept
and taken care of. One day, some great national feast day.
all the city went out to the Ninevite Champ de Mars to enjoy
themselves. Abraham scorning to take any part in the
heathen festival, stayed away, and explored the city. In
the course o-f his investigations he stumbled into the chief
temple (some say it was his father’s workshop or warehouse),
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
71
and looked with not a spark of reverence upon the idols great
and small there set up. No more abashed before gods than
he had been before the court, he took an axe, and with most
sacrilegious hands proceeded to demolish the gods whose wor
shippers were too far away to defend them. He had destroyed
them all except the largest in the place, when a most happy
thought arrested the blow he was about to deal him. Instead
of demolishing that one he put it to a remarkably good pur
pose. He took a piece of cord and tied the axe around the
neck of the only surviving god, and then calmly awaited the
return of the people from the festival.
The first to arrive in the temple was his own father, who
for several seconds failed to realise where he was ; the chips
and rubbish about rather puzzled him. When he had fairly
taken in the situation he was horror-struck, and demanded
who had been guilty of this sacrilege. In almost the same
breath he accused his incomprehensible son, who, however,
pretended to be innocent. “ The fact is, my revered parent,”
said he, “ a woman came to the temple with an offering of
fine flour; and the gods all scrambled for it in so rude a
manner that it came to a deadly fight; and at last that big
one there took his axe and destroyed all the rest, as you see.
In proof of my veracity, behold the very axe still suspended
round the neck of the murderous god1”
This story only made Terah more furious. It was absurd,
he said, to suppose that idols, gods of wood, could quarrel
about an offering, or that one of them should destroy the rest.
Abraham did not forget the sarcastic and obvious remark
that it must be exceedingly absurd to worship gods that could
not do as he averred. But Terah was in no mood to argue;
his blood was up ; his piety—like that of Judge North—was
boiling over; and he resolved to bring his wicked son to con
dign punishment. So he dragged him before Nimrod and
told the mighty hunter how his son had treated the national
gods. Nimrod and his whole court were almost speechless
with horror and indignation. The fury of Jehovah himself
when his breath was hot enough to kindle coals (see Psalm
xviii., 8), scarcely exceeded it. So Nimrod ordered immediate
preparations to be set on foot for the execution of the culprit.
A large meadow was filled up with wood to a great height,
and, at the suggestion of the Devil, they constructed a large
engine, a kind of lithobolus or balista, or catapult, sufficient to
�72
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
hurl a man to a great distance. This was needed for special
reasons. The fire was to be so tremendous in size, and they
wished to light it and let it blaze up a little before flinging
the victim into it; and how, without' an engine of this sort,,
were they to get him into the midst of the fire ? When the
fire was just hot enough and the court and people were expect
ing eagerly the grand holiday sight of a heretic roasting, they
fastened poor Abraham to the engine and fired him off ! And
now, behold a wonder! The aim was correctly enough taken,
and the victim flew along the parabolic projectile-curve right
into the midst of—not the fire, not the pile of wood. The
whole pile, fire and all, disappeared in a twinkling. A flash
of lightning nevei’ came and went faster. And the young
saint fell upon a bed of flowers in the very midst of a beauti
ful meadow!
I do not know how Nimrod endured the disappointment ;•
though no doubt he learnt the lesson never to hunt saints
again or try to kill them. What became of Abraham imme
diately after I cannot say ; though I doubt not he thoroughly
enjoyed the day’s sport and fun, as much as some of us enjoy
the smashing of gods in these degenerate tunes.
Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy
country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father s house,
unto a land that I will show thee: and I will make of thee
a great nation, and I will bless thee and make thy name great;
and thou shalt be a blessing; and I will bless them that bless
thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all
families of the earth be blessed (G-en. xii., 1-3).—Having
delivered Abram from the fell designs of Nimrod and the
Devil, we may now resume his history in the Bible. The
pious reader will not fail to note (1) the unsocial nature of
the Lord’s religion, which begins by sending Abram from
home, (2) the low and vulgar promises held out to his ambi
tion, (3) the vengeful spirit of the Lord, who threatens to
curse the man that curses his favorite. This is a very
appropriate start for the Jewish-Ohristian religion—the Lord
seems never yet to have won a single follower except by means
of bribery or intimidation. He never will; and now those
old weapons are almost out of date.
This story of Abram’s leaving home is a good specimen of
Bible history. In chapter xi., 31, we are told it was Terah
who left his native place, Ur of the Chaldees, taking Abram
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
73
and Lot with him ; and they went forth to go to Canaan.
There is nothing here about leaving “ his father’s house
that house went with him. But the text quoted above from
chapter xii. says God told Abram to go out from his kindred
and his father’s house. Where Ur was, or Haran of Oharran,
cannot be ascertained—somewhere near New Jerusalem
perhaps.
And Abram was seventy-five years old when he departed out
of Haran (Gen. xii., 4).—Is it possible the Lord would send
a poor old fellow of that age on a long journey into an un
known land ? And did he talk to an old fogey of that age
about leaving lens, father s house, etc. ? If his poor old father was
still living, Abram should at least have stayed and buried him
before setting out. And if Terah was dead when God told this
youth to quit, as the last verse of chapter xi. says, what sense
was there in God talking to him about “his father’s house ?”
And there was a famine in the land (Gen. xii., 10).—Ah I
if the Lord had only told the saint how to prevent famines,
and the saint had imparted the secret to the world, then he
would have made him a blessing to mankind; as it is, the
world does not owe anything good to Abram yet, and I fear
it never will.
Abram’s example is instructive. In consequence of the
famine he went to Egypt. His wife, only ten years younger
than himself, is so fair that he fears the Egyptians will kill
him for her sake ; so he bids her tell a lie and pass as his
sister. This was a most ungodly saint, for. he had no faith
in the Lord to protect him in Egypt. What wonder if so
many saints to-day follow the example of this ancient infidel,
the father of the faithful, and trust in anything rather than
Jehovah ? The Egyptians must have had a plague, we sup
pose, just previous to this visit, in which nearly all the women
had been swept off. It is impossible otherwise to account for
Pharaoh’s selecting so old a woman for his harem. Is this
a story that Sarah herself told, when she returned from
Egypt, to some of her gossips over a cup of tea with a little
reviving spirit in it ? Anyhow, why did the Holy Ghost pen
or dictate so stupid and indecent a tale ?
And Abram was very rich in cattle, in silver and in yold
(Gen. xiii., 2).—He does not appear to have had anything
when he went to Egypt: he returned a very rich man. Sarah
is said to have been beautiful; and Abram, friend of the
�74
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
most high God, enriched himself in the most unmanly and
immoral fashion to be conceived. Why had not the Holy
Ghost the decency to throw a veil over this part of the saint’s
life ? Yea, why did he ever mention such a man at all ?
Abram’s treatment of Lot is described by an Israelite so as
to redound to the glory of the former ; had one of Lot’s
descendants written Genesis xiii., no doubt Abram would have
been exhibited as the more selfish man.
I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, so that ifa man
can number the dust of the earth, then shall thy seed also be
numbered (xiii., 16).—This is a good specimen of Bible pro
mises, preposterously impossible of fulfilment. The dust
caught up by one gust of wind, in what the Scotch call a
“ stoury day,” contains more particles than all the people that
have ever lived, most likely. Abram’s descendants, if he has
any at all, are not even among the most numerous of mankind.
Both Abram and his God are mere names, no doubt of beings
that never existed, except as Jupiter and Juno existed.
And Melchizcdek, king of Salem, brought forth bread and
wine : and he was the priest of the most high God (Gen. xiv.,
18).—Here is a delightful source of theological speculation!
Who was Melchizedek ? The Jews said he was Shem, son of
Noah. Some of the fathers'said he was an angel; some
heretics (that is, unfashionable Christians) held that he was
a Power, a Virtue, or Influence of God; others regarded him
as being the Holy Ghost. Some Christians thought he was
the son of God ; and some Jews their Messiah. The Epistle
to the Hebrews (v. and vii.) clears up the whole difficulty in
a style which leaves nothing to be desired: Melchizedek,
according to this, was not Shem, not on angel, not the Holy
Ghost, not the son of God, not the Messiah ; he was “ without
father, without mother, without descent, having neither
beginning of days nor end of life !” Here all difficulties
vanish in an outburst of faith ; and I have no doubt the
sceptical commentators who attempt to explain things beyond
this will be damned for their pains. For my part, I cannot
prove that he had parents ; they are not necessary for gods
and high priests. Those beings have the powei’ to create
themselves, and their ancestors also, when they care to
indulge in such luxuries. And he gave him tithes of all (xiv., 20).
Mobal
and
Practical Reflexions.—(1) How wonderfully
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
75
kind was our heavenly father thus to invent this lying story
for the sake of his servants the priests, who always take tithes
when they cannot get more ! (2) How marvellous are the
ways of God, to inspire one of the priests themselves to write
this story in his blessed book! (3) Note the marvellous
success that has followed this divine fraud. Had it originated
with a mere man it must have failed : but it has robbed the
dupes of the Bible of untold millions ; and this grand success
is a standing miracle calculated to show to all, except unde
ceivable sceptics, that the Bible is the word of God. There
are only two or three fatal points in the story, which we
must note:—
1. Salem is an unknown place, and divines don’t know
where to locate it. I may tell them from my own knowledge
that it is in the very middle of Utopia, and within a few
miles of the Garden of Paradise on the one side, and New
Jerusalem on the other. To the north is the mountain, from
the top of which the Devil showed Jesus all the kingdoms
of the world in a moment of time. Other interesting topo
graphical points might be mentioned; but these are amply
sufficient to lead any explorers to the very spot where Mel
chizedek still reigns and deals in bread and wine.
2. The god for whom Melchizedek was priest creates some
difficulty. It was Eliun, an old Phoenician god, who knew
nothing more of Jehovah than Jehovah did of him. They
are both with Melchizedek to this day, though he does not
recognise the difference between them.
3. .Abram swore by Eliun (v. 22) along with Jehovah ;
showing that he, too, was a polytheist, though Christians
absurdly claim him as a monotheist and a champion of that
cause.
I should note, further, that in the third century there arose
a sect of Melchizedekians, who held that he was the Holy
Ghost, and thus superior to Jesus Christ; for, said they, Mel
chizedek. was the intercessor and mediator for angels, Jesus
being only such for man. The priesthood of the latter, they
add, was a mere copy of the former. The latter point, I
must say, is purely scriptural. See the passages in Hebrews
above referred to. The Cocceians (disciples of Cocceius, a
Dutchman of the seventeenth century) and the Hutchinsonians
generally still believe that Jesus and Melchizedek were one
and the same. So do I. Jack-o’-the-Lantem, Will-o’-the-
�76
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Wisp, Apollo, Baldur and Prester John are only other names
of the same individual. He is rarely seen now, and the
reason is, that the churches have neither faith nor grace
enough to induce him to visit them. He has retired in dis
gust, carrying his lantern and his bread and wine with him ;
and will never return until the churches renounce the world,
and parsons live upon charity begged from door to door.
Problem.—What will be the date of his reappearance ?
Abraham is called the Friend of God (2 Ohron. xx., 7 ;
Isaiah xli., 8; James ii., 23.) There is not much in the
Bible to warrant or suggest the relationship ; besides it is
ridiculous, if God be infinite. The Mahommedans have a
very good story on the subject, much better than any in the
Bible. In a time of dearth, say they, Abram sent to a- friend
in Egypt for meal. The friend refused, for he knew that
Abram would give it away instead of keeping it for his own
family. His servants being ashamed to be seen returning
with empty sacks filled them, for appearance sake, with a very
fine sand, closely resembling flour. They told Abram, but
not Sarah, of their failure to get meal, and the old man was
so overcome that he soon fell asleep.
Sarah, finding the
sacks full of flour, as she supposed, set to make some cakes;
and the smell of the new bread awoke her husband, who
demanded whetever she had obtained the meal. “ Why, your
friend in Egypt sent it,” replied she. “Nay,” said he, “it is
not my friend in Egypt who sent itj but my friend God
Almighty.”
Now such’a story is far more to Abram’s credit as a believer
than almost any in the Bible; and if it were inserted to the
exclusion of several others, the Bible would gain by it—
though the new editors might be damned for improving God’s
word. I sometimes think I will bring out a Bible of my own,
retaining all the good in the old one (not very much), and
improving it by a few genuine new revelations. I am quite
qualified, having as much Holy Ghost as any man that ever
lived.
And when the sun was going down a deep sleep fell upon
Abraham; andlo, an horror of great darkness fell upon him.
(Genesis xv., 12).—Bead the context. Abram killed a heifer,
a she-goat, a ram, a turtle dove and a young pigeon, and
divided them all in pieces, except the birds. And when it
was dark he saw a fiery furnace, and a lamp that went
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
77
between the pieces. The cresset was, I presume, God the
father; the lamp, the son—the Holy Ghost not then being
born, perhaps.
The Mahommedan account of this transaction has the
merit of making a complete story of it, which the Bible does
not. They say Abram was in doubt or perplexity respecting
the mode in which God would raise the dead. Abram, at the
command of God, took an eagle (some say, dove), a peacock,
a raven and a cock, cut them up and pounded their flesh,
bones and feathers all up together in one mass, merely keep
ing their heads intact. Then he called them all by their
names, and the parts came together again, and the birds
resumed life as if nothing had happened. That is as true as
any miracle you ever heard or read of; and I do not for a
moment doubt that a sausage maker could obtain like results
any day, if he only had faith enough. For fear of revelations
of too startling a nature, however, it may be as well not to
suggest that to the fraternity.
Genesis xvi. and xvii. have not much quotable matter in
them. Verse 17 of the later tells us how Abram (in this
chapter his name grows one syllable longer) laughed when
God told him he and Sarah should have a son when their
respective ages were 100 and 90. In this matter all the
world now joins with the saint to laugh at God’s amusing
promises!
And God went up from Abraham (Genesis xvii., 22). This
must have been a very small god. The infinite one cannot
move ; he fills all spac’e, and has no room to move in. He is
an absolute solid, and that is the only quality he has—a per
fect block, but he does not know it. If Christians only read
and studied the Bible, instead of wilfully perverting some of
its words to fit them into others, and all its teachings to fit
them to their own views, how soon they would discover how
ridiculous the old book is, and how opposed to their creeds. I
suppose their God has given them the spirit of slumber to
prevent their understanding the defects of his word.
And he lift up his eyes and looked, and, lo, three men stood
by him; and when he saw them, he ran to meet them from the
tent door, and bowed himself towards the ground, etc. (Genesis
xviii., 2).—This story of Abraham' feeding God with veal and
bread (mustard, peper, salt and other condiments not men
tioned) is a puzzle to the orthodox. They believe their God
�78
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to be almighty, and yet cannot understand how he could
make himself so very small; nor do they quite understand
how he managed to eat and digest Abraham's calf. It is a
bit puzzling, even to me, though I have the gift of the Holy
Ghost to guide me into all truth. However, let us hope
God’s teeth were sound, that his liver was in good order;
though I fear me, that badly-cooked veal sadly disagreed with
him, for immediately after his hasty dinner he went and
destroyed bodom and Gomorrah with fire ! No man could do
that—no god could—whose digestion was good. Good diges
tion when it waits on appetite, brings us into harmony with
all around, and we almost love our enemies—at least those
that are too weak to be able to harm us. If God had enjoyed
his dinner and readily digested it, Sodom and Gomorrah would
not have been so ruthlessly destroyed.
Modal.—When you invite God Almighty to dine with you,,
be sure to get good meat, well killed, well cooked, and well'
served; for if he does not digest it well and readily, he may,
under the influence of the internal burden and torment, go
and burn up a few more cities. Better never invite him than
produce such frightful results.
My own view of the story is this, that three young fellows,
good looking and well dressed, who knew that poor old
Abraham was near-sighted and immensely credulous, played
pranks with him, one of them pretending to be God the
father, and the other two the son and the Holy Ghost.
When they appeared before him and audaciously began to
play their role, Abraham, too conceited to doubt if God would
visit him, too delighted at the honor to be at all suspicious,
assisted the young fellows to gammon him. They found
the old man dying for an heir, and promised him one, at
which Sarah laughed till her aged sides shook again. (It was
the custom with saints in those days to laugh at God;
familiarity bred contempt. For fear of like treatment from
saints, he never appears now-a-days.) Those young fellows
by bribes and flattery, enlisted Sarah in the plot and instructed
her in the part she was to play. At the time appointed they
secretly sent a new-born babe, which Sarah, to content the
poor old man, told him was her own. Thus the divine pro
mise of Isaac was fulfilled; thus prophets and apostles were
sold : and thus the Jewish and the Christian communities
became the victims of a practical joke, and the world’s laugh
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
70
ing-stock unto this day! This view of the case makes every
thing plain ; the orthodox opinion leads only to a cluster of
absurdities.
The story of Sodom reflects little credit upon any of the
parties concerned in it. The Sodomites were bad enough;
Lot was worse ; and God worst of all. To commit wholesale
and indiscriminate murdei' is certainly the worst of crimes.
And stories of brutal punishment only brutalise those who
read and approve them. When I believed the Bible I was
barbarian enough to approve of capital punishment and even
hell torments; in growing out of superstition I grew more
humane.
But his ivife looked back from behind him, and she became a
pillar of salt (Gen. xix., 26).—Some people, alas! treat this
story as a myth. “Is anything too hard for the Lord?” But
if anybody doubts the transformation of Lot’s wife, let him
read some Classical Dictionary or Ovid’s Metamorphoses.
There he will find Daphne was turned into a laurel and Io
into a heifer; Actaeon was turned to a stag, and tom to pieces
by his own dogs; and Atlas was transformed, not into a
paltry pillar of salt, but into a mountain. If the Bible had
only said that this unfortunate lady had been turned into
mount Lebanon, of course all the world would have aagarded
the story as of divine origin; but, a pillar of salt! W hat
God would work a whole miracle for such a trifle ?
And# came to pass that God did tempt Abraham (Gen. xxii.,
1),__ This is fully confirmed by James, who assures us that
God tempteth no man (James i., 13). “Lead us not into
temptation” is a very appropriate prayer for Christians. Had
Abraham known the character of his God he might have used
the prayer and so have escaped the temptation. Can anyone
distinguish this temptation from a practical joke played by
one man upon another on April 1? I cannot—except it be
that here the fun is entirely absent, though that redeeming
feature is sometimes quite evident in a joke perpetrated by
man.
I believe, however, that this transaction really did
occur on April 1, a time when deity considered himself at
liberty to unbend, to resolve the monarch into the clown. So
he sent Abraham to Moriah to murder his son; and when
there, and about to do it, he cried, “ Stop! it is a ram you
have to kill, not Isaac!” Thereupon his courts rang with the
laughter of his flatterers, while Abraham felt himself deceived.
�80
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
And Abraham gave up the ghost (Genesis xxv., 8).—He had
lived 175 years, so the Bible says, and all the good recorded
of him might have been easily performed in 175 minutes.
There is nothing said about immortality in connexion with
the old patriarchs. Indeed, there can be no doubt the writer
made them live so long because he never expected, sensible
man that he was, that they would ever live a second time.
Had he expected his heroes to live again, he never would have
stretched them so long “upon the rack of this rude world.”
And Isaac loved Esau because he did eat his venison; but
Rebekah loved Jacob (Genesis xxv., 28).—“All scripture is
profitable,” says an apostle—chiefly, I should say, in teaching
you how you ought not to act. This family was a saintly
one. The husband and wife, equally pious, are at sixes and
sevens; the old father prefers one son before the other for
the sake of his venison, which he was ’too old to catch for him
self ; and his wife loved the other son only, it appears, because
his father made a favorite of his brother. Between the brothers
the most deadly hatred existed. Esau was a “'muff;” Jacob
was a swindler, a coward, a cheat—a very picture of his God.
and his special favorite. He robbed his brother of his birth
right, though nobody can exactly define how much or little
that meant. Jacob, of course,'was too clever a swindler to
plot and scheme for a trifle ; and no doubt he got at least a
million per cent, for his “mess of pottage,” bread Sind lentils
(verse 34).
The twenty-fourth chapter of Genesis may be skipped at a
bound, for it is false from end to end, a mere repetition of the
story .of Abraham’s sojourn in Gerar.
(To fee conclutZecJ in No. 6).
Printed and Published by Bamsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
¥o. 4.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[id.
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
In verse 14, Cain is made to complain that he is driven
from the face of the Lord! Where did he wander ? And
from, thy face, says he, I shall be hid! And the Lord does
not correct him, therefore he must, I suppose, have been
right. The Lord was confined to some spot in those days ;
to-day he is nowhere.
Cain also feared he should be murdered ; and the Lord set
a mark upon him to prevent that, and threatened seven-fold
vengeance on whoever should slay him! This is curious.
The writer of this was evidently an Arab, a son of the desert,
where the kinsmen of a murdered man were bound to slay the
murderer. He has, in this romantic tale, supposed that this
method of punishing murcer was in vogue in the first family.
If the Holy Ghost inspired this, he too fell into the same inno
cent blunder.
But of whom was Cain afraid ? This question had better
not be pressed, if you wish to believe that Adam and Eve
were the first of living men and women. The story of Cain
implies that the earth was pretty well stocked with people ;
and that shows how fabulous is the tale of Adam and Eve.
The fact is, we are here dealing with nursery tales, which the
orthodox blasphemously ascribe to the inspiration of an
almighty and all-wise God. And the tales are so miserably
edited or compiled that all the learning of 1600 years has
been expended upon them in vain—they are as confused and
irrational as ever.
It may not be amiss to put the question here : How could
the murderer of Cain be punished seven-fold?
Was it
intended to kill him seven times over, or what ? Besides,
�52
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
It repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it
grieved him at his heart (vi., 6).—The Lord is unchangeable ;
here is one of the scripture proofs. He is the first to repent;
the conclusion is that he must have been the first sinner. His
repentance, however, did not do much good to anybody.
Instead of laying the blame where it all honestly fell, upon
himself, he blamed his creatures for being just what he made
them.
So God resolved to commit indiscriminate murder
because his creatures did not please him—a grand example
for all kings, rulers, parents, slaveholders and cattle-owners
for all time ! Any civilised deity would have made a distinction
between the good and the bad, and punished only the latter.
Any rational ruler, god or otherwise, would never have per
mitted his kingdom to become corrupt. In this case “ all
flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth —from man down
to the microscopic monad; there were only a handful of
saints left—viz., Noah and his family, and such other sacred
things as they had about their dwellings and persons.
Those shall be saved in the ark, along with others yet to be
named.
So Noah, being warned in time, set to building his ark. By
the way, they have just found the timbers, half-buried in the
snow, on Mount Ararat. No doubt they will discover the
stalls and cabinets, all labelled and numbered, in which Noah
kept the menagerie during the flood. Pity we can t bring
mountain and all to Great Britain; then sceptics must become
saints in no time at all.
The dimensions of the ark were as follows :—300 cubits
iong, 50 cubits wide, and 30 cubits high. Altogether the area
was 15,000 square cubits, and the solid content 450,000
cubical cubits. A cubit originally was the length of the fore
arm from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger, and it
varied at different times and places. The Jewish cubit was
sometimes 18 inches, at others 21.
Suppose we take the
larger value. Then the ark measured 525ft. long. 87tt. bin.
wide and 52ft. 6in. high. This ship was the largest ever built—
except the “ Great Eastern.” Of course Noah found no difficulty
in its construction. He merely had to get the wood, cut it into
shape, fasten it together in the desired fashion, pitch it within
and without, and lo ! it was prepared for the storm. Anyone
who questions the patriarch’s ability in so trifling a patter
had better lay down this book never to read it again. Of ail
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS
53
people in the world, sceptics and unbelievers are my dread.
You believe in the “Great Eastern,” why not believe in the
ark ? Must we bring its remains from Mount Ararat to con
vince you ? Must we resurrect Noah and his family, and
repeat the experiment of the flood to excite your faith ?
Into this ark Noah was ordered to collect two and two of all
animals in the world (vi., 19, 20). Some priest or Levite added
to the story later, and gave Noah orders to take clean animals
by sevens (vii., 2). “ If you have faith prepare to use it now !”
To build the ark would have been no trifle to a man not
inspired; but to collect pairs of all the animals in the world !
and no natural history book, no collection of specimens to
guide him ! Ah, Noah! much better had it been for thee
hadst thou but died prematurely at the age of 599 years,
instead of lingering on to 600 and having a task like this
imposed upon thee ! Prythee, good Patriarch, how many fly
catchers, bird-catchers, hunters, microscopists, animal tamers,
and others didst thou employ ? And how long did they take
to finish their work? And how didst thou knew when all
the animals were in ? Art sure that no species was omitted ?
How didst thou feed them when in ? Art perfectly sure the
pail’s were all rightly adjusted ? Art perfectly sure, good
Noah that, thou wast sober when thou toldest this tale of the
flood ? Couldst thou do the like again, thinkest thou ? For
my part, let me be set to drain the ocean with a sieve, rather
than have thy task to do!
There are said to be 400,000 different species of insects
now in the museums of civilised nations ; those have been
collected and classified by the labor of over a century, by
people who know their way about the world, and who have
means of transit such as modem times only can boast of.
They are not impeded by forests and marshes and the total
want of roads, as man must have been in the days of Noah.
There can harly be more species now than in ancient times, if
orthodoxy and not Darwinism be true, though there may be
fewer. And into the ark, if the story is true, all insects must
have found their way, except such as spend their whole time
in water.
A few details will now be given which will doubtless tend
to raise admiration for the divine wisdom and goodness,
and to show how totally God’s ways and thoughts differ from
ours.
�54
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt
thou bring into the ark (Gen. vi., 19).—My readers! I am
puzzled and bewildered, for I do not see how Noah did what
he was commanded. Some blasphemous parsons will tell
you that the flood was not universal; but such men are
“ clouds without water, cariied about of winds ; trees whose
fruit withereth, without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the
roots; raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame;
wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of dark
ness for ever,” because they contradict the Bible, which says
plainly that the flood should “ destroy all flesh from under
heaven ; and everything that is in the earth shall die ” (Gen. vi.,
17); “ and every living substance that I have made will I destroy
from off the face of the earth ” (vii., 4). Read the whole of
the seventh chapter, and you will find it stated that this
threat was executed to the letter—no living thing remaining
except those in the ark! By-the-bye, it seems rather unfair
that all land animals should have been drowned, while those in
the sea were not hurt, as verse 22 implies. Perhaps the “ finny
monsters of the deep ” had not sinned, though, and corrupted
their way. That is an interesting point for orthodox com
mentators to clear up. They have the holy ghost to guide
them into all truth ; he never assists me.
Noah took into the ark two and two of all flesh, and suit
able food for them all; a stock of provisions for a year or
more.
(1) Butterflies.—For the cabbage butterflies (Pieridi) he
must have planted a kitchen-garden in the ark ; nettles would
be needed for the vanessoe ; the white admiral lives on honey
suckles when a caterpillar; the poplar butterfly must have
horse-droppings ; the purple emperor would require an oak
tree or a gooseberry bush ; the satyridi live upon grasses,
elms and hawthorns.
Noah must have embarked a whole
country for butterflies alone. I have mentioned only a few.
(2) Moths would be equally difficult to manage. The bee
shaped sesia lays its eggs on the bark of poplars, and the
catterpillars eat into the tree. They remain catterpillars for
two years, by the way ; others must have flowers, the honey
of which they sip while on the wing ; another moth needs the
euphorbia to feed upon; others, oleanders, though fuchsias
are not refused on occasion ; the squeaking death’s-head moth
needs the potatoe plant or the jasmine, though it does not
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
55
object to a hive of honey ; to satisfy another moth, Noah
must have brought in a Banksia bush from Australia; the
lasiocampa is said to live on heather ; the lockey moth is fond
of apple-tree leaves ; the goat moth needs old trunks of elms
or willows to excavate into galleries ; the catterpillars of the
acronycta are fond of the mosses and lichens which grow on
trees, walls, etc. ; one kind of tortridna feeds on green peas
in the pods ; another gets into apples and pears; another
into plums; others into acorns and beech-nuts, chestnuts,
etc.; some of the tineidce moths are the pests that destroy
garments.
(3) Among hymenopterci. some of the saw-flies want rosetrees for their eggs, etc. ; others turnips ; others firs and
pines ; the gall-flies (Cynipsidas) need trees to puncture in
order that galls may grow and protect their eggs and larv®.
Ants are among the most interesting beings in the world.
It would probably be of little or no use to take two of them
into the ark. You need at least three to carry on the affairs
of an ant-nest. The male and female of the common ants have
wings, the workers none. The latter do all the work, con
struct the nest and keep it in repair, take special care of the
eggs, removing them from spot to spot to keep them at the
right temperature, rip them open to let the larvae out at the
right time, and nurse the young ones till able to do for them
selves. Two of them could not construct a nest. Moses and
the Holy Ghost did not know that. The mason ants and the
miner ants would be as helpless in pairs as the little red ones.
The formica fuliginosa lives in old trunks of trees, which
it tunnels in a most marvellous manner. Others get into the
beams of houses and hollow them out. What Noah would
have done with a few of those in his ark it is easy to imagine:
he and his whole menagerie would have gone to the bottom,
for they would have riddled his ship for him till it was no
stronger than a bandbox.
The polyergus rufens is a warrior ant. They are only males
and females and do no work. They make war upon the nests
of the black ants, steal their larvae, and carry them off to their
nests, where the prisoners are reared as slaves and compelled
to work for their masters. Certain American ants, also, are
said to follow this trade.
Noah might have been at his wit’s end with the Driver
ants of West Africa. They range about in large armies
�56
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
having, like the ancient saints, no certain dwelling place.
They march by night. The army is divided into three groups,
soldiers to attack and disable the prey, assistants to divide the
prey into portable portions, and the laborers.
They are
terrible things, and few animals can resist them. They have
been known to kill the python, the largest serpent in the
country.
When they enter a dwelling, rats, mice, lizards, and
cockroaches get out as fast as possible. They visit all dirty
houses and towns where scavengering is needed. A few of
those would have emptied the ark in a short timn.
The excavating insects would have given Noah no little
trouble. When adult they are strict vegetarians, and yet
they have to provide for flesh-eating offspring. There are
four species of them, which differ somewhat amongst them
selves. The mother digs a hole in the earth, a tree, or wall.
Having prepared the nest, she attacks caterpillars, spiders,
etc.. These she stings, so as to disable and paralyse, but not
to kill. The prey is placed in the nest and the eggs deposited.
The young larvae find ready for them living food as soon as
they are ready to eat it, and the victim, though stung and
half eaten, still lives till his enemy has had enough of bim.
Such is one of the ways of divine providence, though the
writer of Genesis did not know of it. The scolia goes to even
less trouble, for it finds a larva of a beetle in the ground, digs
down to it, stings it so as to render it helpless and torpid
without killing it; and then deposits its eggs under the skin of
its victim, which is by and by devoured by the young scolia.
How did Noah manage for all these ? Neither he nor his
God knew anything of these matters.
If they had they
would never have undertaken to save the twos and twos of all
flesh!
Need I mention the fact that bees also could not have been
preserved without more than a pair of each species ? I must
pass over beetles, spiders, and other insects, and merely men
tion the fact that most insects have parasites, as well as many
larger animals. Besides, why were some of them preserved at
all ? Fleas and bugs, the itch-insect, mosquitoes, pediculi
capitis, locusts, ticks, phylloxera, the tsetses, etc. ? And why
were the tapeworm and the trichina preserved ? Trichina
usually enters the human system in underdone pork ; I pre
sume it entered the ark in Ham.
�JUMPING- COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
57
More than half of the insects taken into the ark might well
have been excluded, and many of them would have been if
there had been an enlightened superintendent appointed to
oversee the embarkation. As it was, they were all taken in,
and Noah must have provided them with sufficient food for a
whole year and more. Those who know anything of natural
history can well enough perceive that he must have carried
in a slice of every country in the world, and must have had
some means of reproducing all the world’s various climates to
keep his freight alive and well. This must have been a heavy
task, for we must remember that during the whole year the
ark was floating five miles above the old sea-level, for the
flood was more than five miles deep, as we shall see later on ;
and though the rigors of this arctic temperature may have
been slightly modified by the general rise of what then was
the earth’s surface, yet the cold must have been intense ; and
the wonder is that the whole concern did not get crushed
amongst the myriads of icebergs which must have abounded.
Of course, nothing is too hard for the Lord—except to do a
sensible thing.
If Noah felt difficulty with the insects, what must he have
felt respecting the largest of the beasts ? There were giants
on the earth in those days, and giantesses too, and they had
to be got into the ark some way or other. Horses, cows,
camels and elephants were not easily disposed of. Some of
the giant birds might have exercised his skill—the moa, for
example, or other extinct monsters. Besides, the celebrated
phoenix—in whom the fathers believed as devoutly as they
did in the holy pigeon, alias Holy Ghost—could have
been embarked only as a unit, for a pair of them never
existed.
The dinotherium is estimated to have been eighteen feet
long. He was probably fond of marshy ground, or may
have spent his time much in the way the hippopotamus
does.
A pair of these, standing end to end, would reach
thirty-six feet—about half-way across the ark. Themselves
and their food and accommodation would require no trifling
portion of the space available for the whole menagerie.
Perhaps, however, like Milton’s devils in Pandemonium, the
animals in those days were not so rigid and exacting as now,
and may have accommodated themselves to the space allotted
them—
�58
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
“ . . . the signal given,
Behold a wonder! they but now who seemed
In bigness to surpa-s earth’s giant sons,
Now less than smallest dwarfs, in narrow room,
Throng numberless like that Pygmean race
Bejonu the Indian mount.”
There is, at any rate, nothing in the world so handy as a
miracle to help one out of a fix ; and as Noah must have sorely
needed a few of those accommodating events, of course piety
suggests that we suppose them, though we cannot prove them.
Anything is better than common sense in expounding the
Bible. No truly devout man ever tries that as a key to unlock
its secrets and mysteries. God forbid !
The megatherium was an animal from 12 to 18 feet long,
8 or 9 feet high, and 5 to 6 feet wide behind. His tail, stout
and strong in proportion as a kangaroo’s, was six feet long,
and his foot about a yard from heel to toe. It is supposed
that he lived upon roots which he dug out of ground, or else
upon twigs of trees. I should like to know how Noah found
him employment for claws and jaws during the voyage. It
would have been nothing to him to have scratched a few holes
through the bottom of the ark.
The mylodon (11 feet long) and the glyptodon (9 feet long)
must also have been preserved. The mammoth, which makes
the elephant look like a good-sized calf in comparison, must
have taken a large space ; and he did not live upon nothing.
A pair of these must have devoured many tons of vegetables
during the year.
How did the patriarch manage the megalosaurus, a land
lizard about 40 feet long, which very likely fed upon such
smaller lizards as crocodiles ?
Authorities differ as to the length of the iguanodon. Mantell
thought it must have been 70 feet long ; Professor Owen
brings it down to 30 feet. But its thigh-bone is 4 feet 8
inches long. Fancy four of those tremendous lizards (mega
losaurus and iguanodon), beasts 15 to 20 feet high, and more
than double that length, and broad in proportion—fancy
them, I say, having a fight in the ark, or running about to
catch such prey as crocodiles and alligators—scores of tons of
flesh and bones bouncing about on the floor of Noah’s box 1
And how would elephants, tigers, lions, behave when such a
row was forward ?
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
.59
It is all very well, of course, for divines to assume that the
giants above named were extinct before Noah’s day. They
may say so if they will; but what extinguished them ? I
will give my own inspired opinion ; and whoever shall receive
it shall save his soul alive. My own view is this : That when
Noah undertook to get pairs of all the animals into his ark he
assumed obligations he never contemplated. When he blew
his whistle as a signal for them all to appear, away they came,
each pair bringing a full year’s provisions with them—the
elephants had theirs packed in then’ trunks, of course, and
the kangaroos came with their pouches full ; the rest brought
their stock upon then’ backs. But when Noah saw the number
of animals approaching, the hundreds—where he had bargained,
as he thought, for twos—when he beheld the enormous sizes
of those above named he cried out: “ 0 Lord, thou hast
deceived me, and I was deceived (Jeremiah xx., 7). I will
back out of the bargain. It would take fifty arks to stow
away all this rabble ; and who, I should like to know, would
risk his life in a box for a year—for ten minutes even—with
all these ferocious beasts ?” And it came to pass that the
Lord answered and said unto Noah : “ I also am greatly
amazed at the multitude of living things and at the greatness
of them. Go to, therefore, shut the giants out and let them
drown, for it repenteth me that I made mammoth, and
megalonyx, and mastodon, and megalosaurus, and iguanodon
upon the earth. Lo, I will even put my hook in their nose
and my bridle in their jaws if I can, and lead them back by
the way they came, and thou shalt see them no more for ever.”
So Noah was comforted. Is it not written in the book of
Jasher and in the visions of Iddo the seer ?
And thus those enormous animals became extinct, and their
carcases were buried in the strata of the earth as a warning
to all beasts, lest they also should eat and drink and grow
too large, and thus provoke the Lord to cut them off from
the face of the ground. “ He that hath ears to hear, let him
hear.”
I have no wish, my reader, like commentators in general,
to bore you with further remarks tending to expose the abso
lute absurdity of the flood; though the subject might be
pursued to a very great length, and every step would only
tend to show how totally false or mythological is the narrative.
Even Christians themselves are beginning to throw ridicule upon
�60
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
it. Just recently they have spread reports of the finding of the
ark on Ararat; and one American journal has discovered that it
was insured in a New York office as a vessel to convey pas
sengers and animals, owned by Noah and Sons. Whether
the menagerie was insured has not yet been ascertained.
When sacred subjects such as this can be so treated in
common newspapers, honest men may rejoice to think that
malice and stupidity will not much longer send men to gaol
for doing what their Christian neighbors do,—viz., ridiculing
the holy and ever-blessed revelation God gave to the world to
enlighten and save mankind.
Pray don’t forget that the flood was universal; the earth
was encased in a shell of water, like an orange With its rind,
like the fruit with paste in an apple-dumpling. This shell of
water covered all the mountains, and they are over five miles
in perpendicular height.
We will now inquire into the quantity of water required to
drown the world, and speculate a little on the wisdom of so
expensive and clumsy a method of gratifying vengeance.
The earth is a globe (nearly so) 25,000 miles in circum
ference ; and the area of its whole surface equals about
200,000,000 square miles. Its highest mountains rise more
than 5 miles above the level of the sea ; the flood rose about
26 feet above the top of the highest of them. Therefore, the
earth must have been encased in a shell of extra water about
5-|- to 6 miles deep, the highest peak in the world being over
28,000 feet high. This equals an ocean 25,000 miles long,
by 8,000 wide, and 5^ to 6 miles deep, measuring down to
the ordinary sea-level. The solid content of this new and
universal ocean could not be less than about 1,000,000,000
cubic miles of water, or about l-80th of the solid contents of
the whole earth as it now is. If this water could be formed
into a river 1 mile wide and 10 yards in depth, it would stretch
out to the enormous length of 176,000,000,000 miles, almost
2,000 times the distance from the earth to the sun ! If the
water of that river flowed by at 7 miles per hour, it would
take 2,878,188 years to run away !
Whence did all this water come ? From heaven, and down
through its windows ? It must have been very many millions
of years on the road. And when it is remembered that the
earth is totally invisible from heaven, we must conclude that
he who fired or squirted all that water from his syringe must
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
61
have been a most excellent marksman indeed, not to have hit
the sun instead of so tiny a mark as the earth, and so abso
lutely invisible as it must have been. We cannot, I am sorry
to confess, sufficiently admire the goodness and wisdom of
God in this transaction, especially when we consider that he
must have shot the water from his syringe many millions of
years before either earth or sun was created!
Now this
shows divine skill in its most transcendant phase. Imagine,
my reader, a marksman who could fire his rifle, and while the
shot was flying could go and create the target and then
coolly wait for the flying bullet to hit the bull’s-eye!
Jehovah, the war-God, was the very best marksman evei’ yet
known. How carefully he calculated the time and the posi
tion of the moving target! Remember, this earth is flying
through space at the rate of about 65,000 miles an hour!
How clever of him to hit the mark under such conditions !
Then, how kind of him to arrange for drowning the world so
many millions of years before it was created!
What an
exhibition of foresight and providence !
Who would not
worship thee, 0 Jehovah! after this display of thy goodness
and wisdom?
What became of the water aftei’ it had done all the drown
ing, I am not able to say. Nor can I explain how it was that
so large a mass of water, falling from heaven with a velocity
some hundreds of times greater than a cannon ball has, did
not bear the earth before it as a falling drop of rain does an
invisible grain of dust. These are mysteries we had better
leave alone. Divine wisdom has thrown a veil over them.
Who shall dare to lift it now ?
There are many other incidents connected with the flood
that prudence bids us not to meddle with, if we would retain
our faith. Therefore, let them remain buried in the divine
oblivion which shrouds them.
When Noah escaped from his box he murdered one or more
of all the clean beasts and fowls he had with him, and burnt
them for Jehovah’s dinner. The Lord had kept Lent for over
a year, poor fellow ; and never had been so delighted in all his
days as he was with this sacrifice. He smelled but does not
seemed to have eaten it.
So delighted was he, that he
promised never to drown the world again. Perhaps he feared
he might lose all the animals in another flood, and so get no more
smoke of burning flesh as long as he lived. How extremely
�62
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
condescending, my friend, it was of the infinite God, who fills
all space, to stoop so low as to bring his nose near enough to
sniff up the reek of Noah’s sacrifice ! One might have thought
that he would have been above such conduct. But no ; the
Bible reveals God as having nothing better to do just then
than to enjoy himself smelling the burning animals. Of
course he has been wonderfully civilised since. The bishops
have taken him to task over a good many things, and you
wouldn’t know it was the same god now, so great a transfor
mation has there been in him. Indeed, the incident of Noah’s
sacrifice is now never mentioned in his presence. The slightest
allusion to it would produce an earthquake.
And surely your blood of your lives will 1 require; at the
hand of every beast, will I require it. and at the hand of every
man . . . whoso sheddeth mans blood, by man shall his blood
be shed (Gen. ix., >5-6).—The Bible has been translated into
many languages, but not into all. Why are the poor beasts
forgotten ? They shed men’s blood, some of them ; and God
will require it at their hands. To this clay the beasts have
never been warned. How shocking ! Lions and tigers, mad
bulls and wolves have shed many a man’s blood because they
did not know the risk they ran. Why does not some pious
divine go and tell them that they will be damned if they shed
human gore ? Alas! to think of the many serpents and
ravenous beasts that might be tamed and converted by this
Bible text if they only knew it! And how hard-hearted are
the worshippers of God, that they don’t go and tell them.
Put up this text in all places where men and beasts meet, in
the languages of all the animal species of a dangerous nature ;
let them know the real price of human blood ; and neither
beast of prey, nor flea, nor bug will ever shed another drop as
long as the world shall last.
The latter part of the text is the stronghold of the public
executioner. But for the Bible the death-penalty would pro
bably disappear. In obedience to divine commands men have
burnt witches and heretics, and still hang murderers to glut
their taste for vengeance. What good is done to anybody by
hanging a man ? Does it restore his victim to life ? Does it
deter from crime ? Not at all. It is the result'of superstition,
and merely multiplies murder.
Behold I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed
after you ; and with every living creature that is with you, ofthe
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
63
fowl, of the cattle, and of every beast of the earth with you (Gen.
ix., 9-10).—Here Jehovah enters into a covenant with Noah
and all the beasts of the earth, pledging himself never to
drown the whole earth again for the term of his natural life.
What better evidence could we have that the writer was
demented ? The flood seems to have affected what little
brain he had ; and so he invents a treaty between the animals
and the extraordinary deity who first makes, then destroys,
and then makes a covenant with the animals ! I wonder if
he took them in the lump or canvassed them one by one !
And what could the animals think of him ? He who had
gone to such pains to destroy their fathers, mothers, brothers,
sisters and playfellows—with what delight they must have
welcomed his advances ! How readily they must have fallen
in with his proposals ! No prudent animal or man could
enter into covenant with such a God as Jehovah, so soon, too,
after his general massacre. They may not have uttered all
they felt when he was canvassing them ; but we can realise
it all notwithstanding their silence. Enter into covenant with
the universal destroyer ! The Bible writers had no conception
of a joke—unless the whole .book is to be regarded as a grim
and ghastly jest at the expense of the Jewish-Ohristian religion.
Certainly, whether the writer meant it or not, few jokes ever
equalled this story of the covenant; and the few stories that
do rival it are found in the Bible.
He would not drown the whole world again, so he would
not! How kind of him ! Does he think we can’t see through
it ? The fact is, all the water was gone, and he had no means
of drowning the world any more. At least, it would take
him several millions of years to do it, and he was not pre
pared to undertake the task a second time. So he made a
virtue of necessity ; pretended to Noah and the beasts that
he could if he would drown the world just as often as he
pleased, but he would not do so because the smoke of the
sacrifice had so delighted him.
And then he proceeds to indicate the sign, token, or proof
of the covenant. No deed was drawn up; neither God nor
Noah could write their names; they and the rest of the animals
could only make their marks. The rainbow, therefore, is
made the sign, the signature of the covenant; but only one
of the parties signifies adhesion to it—viz., God. And his
signature turns out to be a sham. The rainbow is as old as
�€4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
rain and sunshine in unison. Ever since rain fell and sunbeams
flashed upon the falling drops, there the rainbow has lighted
up and beautified the scene. It not only skirts the rain-cloud;
it dances (or its sisters do) upon the spray of fountains and of
dashing breakers. And how could Noah be so hoodwinked ?
He had lived 600 years and more : could you persuade him
that he had never seen a rainbow before the flood ? Well,
the bow had been no guarantee" that God would behave
himself before the flood, and how could it be after ( For
well nigh 600 years he had seen the bow crossing the cloud
when he happened to be between the sun and the shower ;
and yet in his 601st year there was the universal deluge!
How, then, was it possible for Noah, or his sons, or his
daughters, or his wife, or his cattle, or anything that was
with him in the ark, to put any dependence on this covenant,
ratified by a well-known natural pheenomenon as old as the
nature which produced it ? Who would take the rainbow as
a receipt to a bill ?
And I will remember my covenant (Gen. ix„ 15).—Yes, God
will remember! He will look upon the bow to refresh his
memory, as he adds in the following verse. He who remembers
and refreshes his memory with a sign, may and does forget.
Other texts of scripture show this beyond doubt. “ Forget
not the humble ” (Psalm x., 12)—the very parties most likely
to be forgotten. “ How long wilt thou forget me, O Lord ?”
(Psalm xiii., 1). “Forget not the congregation of thy poor
for ever ” (Psalm lxxiv,, 19). “ Forget not the voice of thine
enemies ” (lxxiv., 23). Manifestly the Bible maligns God, or
he is liable to forget. I prefer the latter alternative. Of
course he can’t remember everything—the strongest-minded
man needs to keep a diary, how much more a God !
(To be conbimraed in No. 5).
Printed arid Published by Ramsey and Eoote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 8.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[W
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
_________ .
__
. .. Mi
HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
Thebe once lived many ages ago a fairy king, named Mihole.
He dwelt in a far-away land, and was ruler over a very large
kingdom. Mihole was skilled in magic, and could work the
most astonishing wonders ; out of nothing he made worlds,
and living beings like men and women out of clay. But this
great king was wayward, cruel, jealous, headstrong; and de
lighted in nothing so much as shedding blood and inflicting
misery. So cruel was he that he even exerted his magic to
create living things for the sole purpose of tormenting them.
At one time he made a world of pretty large size, just like
the earth. Then he made all sorts of plants and animals grow
in it : and even made a pair in his own likeness, who could
talk and reason like men. This pair he put into a palace
where there was a room locked, which they were commanded
not to open on pain of death. He then gave them the key
and departed.
On leaving he chuckled with glee at the
thought that they would disobey him, as he knew perfectly
well they would. To be sure, they were mere babies, without
experience to guide them.
Now Mihole, in order to make sure that Madab and Biba (for
those were the names of the unfortunate pair) should unlock
the fatal door, sent a sort of monkey, named Jocko, to them,
who amused them exceedingly by his antics. This monkey
could talk, and was a clever, gay, sprightly fellow, of endless
fun and frolic. He was at once a favorite with Madab and
Biba, and they could not bear him to be out of their com
pany. One day Jocko snatched away the key from Madab
and began to examine it with pretended surprise ; and after a
time he fitted it into the lock of the room they were forbidden
to enter. Both Madab and Biba ran to him in alarm and
tried to persuade and coax him not to open the door, telling
•
�34
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
him that Mihole would kill them if they did. At this Jocko
laughed till the Palace rung again, saying, “Are you such
babies as to believe that Mihole was in earnest when he bade
you not to enter this room. Booh! He was only joking.
Come on ; we will see what is inside.”
He opened the door and entered, Madab aud Biba reluc
tantly and timidly following. When they were in they were
delighted beyond measure. Here were all things rich and
rare that Fairyland could ever produce, in the greatest pro
fusion too. In this room the three friends enjoyed themselves
the whole afternoon, and paid no heed to the waning of the
day. Before thev knew how late it was, they heard a loud
fierce voice, shouting. “ Madab! where the ------ are you ?
Here, I have been running all over the Palace looking for you
the last half-hour. What! ” he continned, seeing the door
of his secret room open, “ What! have you broken into my
treasury ? You shall pay for this, I promise you! ”
Madab and Biba, in dire confusion, and blank with terror,
excused themselves by throwing the blame upon poor Jocko.
And Mihole at once made a great dark pit full of fire and
brimstone, and there he shut up Jocko for ever. He would
have died, of course, from the fire and the stifling vapors,
but the cruel king magically kept him alive for the purpose
of inflicting pain and misery upon him. When he had dis
posed of Jocko, he turned to Madab and Biba, and told them
they would have to die. But here, too, he tortured before
killing.
You shall die,” said he, “ but not just yet. You
shall live and people this world with your miserable brood,
who shall suffer want, cold, hunger, cancers, coughs, rheu
matics, and a thousand horrible tortures. They shall die of
famine, flood, pestilence, earthquake, war, murder: and after
they have died once they shall live again, and be cast with
Jocko into the unquenchable fire, where they shall gnash
their teeth and yell with anguish and despair for ever and
ever.” Then he drove them out of the Palace to the open
field, fastened the door, put the key in his pocket, and went
away in a mighty rage.
All the evils he had threatened to Madab and Biba, and
their poor children, came trooping one after another, or alto
gether at times, so that their life was dreadfully bitter ; and
they cursed the day that Mihole had made them, as well they
might; for he meant them nothing but mischief from the first,
�HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
35
and had even planned and incited their disobedience for the
sake of gratifying his own malignity in seeing them and their
children suffer every variety of torture.
Now fairies are not like men and women, for they live for
millions of years. Madab and Biba, after their disgrace, lived
on to old age, and then died, leaving their country to their
children, and they to theirs for thousands of years. In the
meantime poor Jocko was burning in his hell, with now and
then a holiday granted him by Mihole, who let him out for
nothing in the world but sheer mischief ; so that he might
have an excuse for punishing him yet more, and also have
the gratification of seeing multitudes of the children of Madab
and Biba enticed into his own lake of fire. Indeed the
wickedness of Mihole knew no bounds, and the older he
became the more and more malignant he grew, as the following
will show.
He had an only begotten son, whose mother was unknown
even to his best friends. There was a mystery about this
son ; though, being the only one, he was made much of. Now
a grand and awful scheme entered into the head of Mihole.
He bethought himself thus :—“ Those beings I made, Madab
and Biba, have deeply offended me, and I will never forgive
them. Of course, I planned it all; but I shall not forego the
gratification of punishing them on that account. I can do
what I will with my own. Still, I will not send the whole
race of their children into that fire; I will select a few and
bring them to my Palace to live with me. They will make
good sport fox’ me no doubt; and the craven-spirited wretches
will sing my praises and honor me, though they are well
aware that I am roasting their own flesh and blood in the
lake of fire. Yes! I will do it. But I must have satisfaction.
I am not going to save them from the fire for nothing. I
must and will have some equivalent. If I forego the pleasure
of damning them, I must and will have an equivalent of
pleasure in • another way.
“Now this is what I will do. I will take my only son
Jessah, and will transform him by magic into one of the de
scendants of Madab and Biba; and then I will get him
crucified ; and on the cross he shall suffer the most excrucia
ting tortures that even a fairy can endure. Bah !—never
mind the pain. I shall not feel it. I shall glory in it. And
t
�ss
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
thus I will redeem to myself a few of the doomed race. This
is my will, and it shall be, it must be done.”
“ Jessah ! ” shouted he to his son. His son came and paid
him his respects.
“ My son, you know I love you tenderly, do you not ? ’ said
Mihole.
“ Yes, sire,” replied the son, with no great enthusiasm.
“ Well, my boy, I have some work for you to do. You
remember how Madab and Biba disobeyed me about 4,000
years ago, and how I have had no good will towards the race
of them from that time till now. You know how I have
punished them, and how I have merely made a favourite now
and again of one or other of them whose crimes or stupidity
served to amuse me. Now I intend to save a few of them
from entering that fiery pit below there, and bring them
hither to live in this palace. But I must have an equivalent
»f suffering in another direction for the pain I am going to
remit to them. Do you understand me, my son ?”
l-1 believe I do, sire,” replied Jessah. •'•' And I am glad
you are going to show them mercy ; though I wish you would
forgive the whole race and Jocko, too, and not trouble about
any equivalent of pain.”
••Ah’, ah! Just like the child you are. You do not
understand business, my boy,” replied the old fairy. ••' Give
up a privilege without compensation ! No! No! I have
spent many a year of pleasure in hearing their groans, and
do you suppose I am going to forgive them and stop their
yelling ! I had rather give up all I have and die myself than
put out hell-fire or release a prisoner without compensation!
So no more on that point, my son ! No more !
Now listen to me. You go at once to the world where
the race of Madab live, and by a trick I will show you you
can transform yourself into a baby and be bom of one of the
the same race. I may tell you beforehand that I am going
to make you a sin-offering for that cursed race : and you willX
be crucified and die in awful agony to gratify mj fierce
wrath and justice. Then I will raise you up to life again,
you will return to the palace none the worse for your
journey, and be followed by a select number of the children
of Madab.”
Poor Jessah was wild with amazement, and begged and
prayed his cruel father to forego his design. But in vain.
�, HOW A FAIRY WAS TRANSFORMED.
37
You will do as I bid you, boy,” said be, “ or—do you see
yonder lake of fire ?—I’ll hurl you into that and roast you
there as long as I live. Take your choice. It is all one io
me.”
So the son yielded to the mad father’s whim, and became
incarnate ; lived a miserable life; was crucified by enemies
instigated thereto by his awful father, who heaped upon hint
all the agony in his power while dying. Three days after
death he restored his son to life and took him home. And
there was an end of the farce. Mihole was no more satisfied
than before. He resolved next to send his son again to the
world of Madab to call all its inhabitants to judgment; then
to bum up the world with fire, and to shut up most of the
unfortunate race in Jocko’s hell for- ever. But the son, sick
and disgusted, fled from his father’s den for ever, to escape
the misery and humiliation of executing his father’s mad
schemes and infernal wishes.
******
‘■ Which things are an allegory.” My Fahy Tale is the
Christian Scheme of Redemption, stript of its pious trappings,
writ as it ought to be writ, and exhibited in its gory features •
and its diabolic qualities. I hope it may help to throw comtempt upon the pious tomfooleries of Christmas-tide, and
expose to ridicule the farce of the incarnation of the Son of
God.
�38
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
No matter, for my present purpose, who wrote the Biblenor how old it may be. My jumping, skipping comments
relate only to the contents of the book, and will be just what
the title indicates, for I shall jump from one text to another,
instead of wasting time in noticing the intervening passages.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.—
Genesis i., 1. Beginning of what ? Time? Time never had
a beginning. Of the world ? It could not have been made in
its beginning, for it existed exactly the same moment it began to
be. Then what does it mean ? The beginning of God’s work ?
\ If so, he must have been a lazy fellow to idle away in doing
nothing at all the inmeasurable time or eternity which pre
ceded the moment he began to work. And what made him
begin just then, I wonder ? Had he been all his life before
making up his mind whether to create or not ? . I think it is
a pity that it should have taken him so long and not a little
longer. Surely a god who could do without a plaything dur
ing his early life might have done without one for ever. The
world seems to be his shuttlecock, created for this own amuse
ment ; and his sport involves the misery and death of his
creatures. It is no credit to a god to have made a world like
this. It is not the work of a good god!
The heaven!—That is a purely fictitious place. The
firmament or heaven is only an optical illusion, the mere
boundary of vision, larger or smaller in proportion to the
power of the eyes of the world. Modern astronomy shows
beyond the possibility of doubt that the heaven, or heavens,
do not exist, and never did. So the Bible opens with a
blunder which shows that the writer, instead of being inspired
by a being who knew everything, drew his inspiration from his
own narrow experience, and egregiously blundered in the first
sentence he wrote.
The earth was without form and void, and darkness was
upon the face of the deep.—i., 2. More nonsense. The earth
always had a form, pretty much the one it has now, too. As
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
39
for the darkness on the face of the deep, we will comment
upon that when we know what deep is meant. Does any one
know ?
The spirit of god or of the gods—if it means anything, it is
the wind. That need not have been mentioned, surely.
Let there be light—i., 3. Did God say that ? In what
language ? To whom ? Why did he say it ? If he had his
tinder-box by him, he need not have said anything about it ;
for flint and steel work no better for being spoken to.
And God divided the light from the darkness—i., 4. I am
sure he never did, for light and darkness never were mingled.
Light is the positive state ; darkness the negative. Darkness
is but the absence of light. How absurd, to talk of dividing
light from darkness ! You need inspiration to commit folly
like that.
And God made the firmament or heaven—i., 7. Why, he
made that in the beginning, and here the next day he makes
it again ! Did the first not please him ? Did he pull it down
and build it up again the next day ? Poor architect! Oh !
I forgot, he had no one to guide him, had no experience in
world-building. Were he to try now with all the advantages
human science could give him, perhaps he would make a
much better job of the whole affair. He could scarcely do
worse.
And the earth brought forth grass—i., 12. In the next
chapter (ii., 3-8) we are told that he made every plant and
herb before they grew and then “ planted ” them—no doubt
using a dibble and watering-pot, after digging the soil with
a fork or spade, as a regular ordained gardener would do
to-day. The reader had better believe both accounts. He is
not bound to understand either—better not try. The less
you know about God and his ways the better you like him.
Lights in the firmament—i., 14. There is no firmament.
Therefore no lights were placed in it.
Two great lights—i., 16. The sun is a light, the moon is
no more a light than the earth. It merely reflects the sun
light. The author of Genesis did not know that. To him
sun and moon seem to have been about equal; in reality the
sun is about 60,000,000 times larger than the moon. Besides,
for about one-half of its time the moon is next to useless for
lighting purposes, without reckoning wet and cloudy weather.
He made the stars also—i., 16. A mere fleabite, the
�40
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
making of the stars, evidently. They are so small.
No
doubt god made them of the sparks struck out by his flint
when lighting the sun. Why, the nearest of them all is so
distant that light takes three years and seven months to
travel from it to the earth: while others seen in the telescope
are so far away that light spends many thousands of years
upon the journey. And some of them must be at least hun
dreds of times larger than the sun! Had the author of
Genesis understood astronomy, he would not have written
this nonsense about the creation.
A nd god made the beasts of the earth .... and everything
that creepeth upon the earth—i., 25. He might have found
better employment than making serpents and snakes, hyaenas,
wolves, tigers, etc. And what was he thinking about when
he made parasites, such as trichina and tape-worms ? But
Darwinism shows that the vegetables and animals, good or
bad, were not manufactured in this sudden manner ; but were
gradually evolved or developed from older forms of life—a
subject too large to entei- upon here.
So god created man in his own image . . . . male and
female created he them—i., 27. In the Hebrew it is “gods ”
not god—the Elohim—that made man. They were evidently
male and female themselves, as all respectable deities were.
And Adam and Eve were made in their image ; in fact if you
had seen the creators and the created together you could not
tell which was which—stature and build, color, hair, and
everything were just alike. The only difficulty one meets
with is this; how could Adam and Eve be the parents of
snch diversified tribes and families of men as now people the
earth ? Black and white, of various shades ; short and tall;
fat and lean; round heads and long heads; Caucasians and
Negroes ; and all the endless variety existing to-day ? Which
of all these descendants are most like the first pair ? I should
say that most likely the lowest, ugliest and most degraded
couple to be found are just the very image of the first pair,
and they were exactly like their creator’s. Tut! tut! I
don’t wish you to worship such a pair of deities. Everyone
to his taste. But if you can worship the creator of a world
like this, you need not pretend to be squeamish.
Every seed-bearing herb and fruit-bearing tree ... to you
shall it be for meat (Gen. i., 29).—All herbs and trees bear
seed, and therefore all herbs and trees were for human food.
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
41
according to this. Poor first pair! Look through some
“Family Herald,” my reader, and see what those poor things
had set before them for food! There is no discrimination
exercised by the nurse ; but those two full-blown babies, who
had never sucked nor had pap given them, are just left to
themselves to select their food as best they may from a
universal Botanical Garden, teeming to excess with every
plant and weed that ever grew! The trees are included in
the stock. And no cookery yet invented! How .sickly they
must have been the first week or two! The marvel is they
did not get poisoned before the first sunset.
And God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it
was very good (i., 31).—The man who wrote that had never
been chased by lion or tiger, nor bitten by a snake or serpent;
white ants had never destroyed his dwelling, nor moths spoilt
his wardrobe ; fleas and bugs had never teased him, nor
mosquitoes driven him mad ; thorns and thistles had never
pricked and-lacerated his flesh, nor miasma laid him down
with yellow fever ; tropical heat had never roasted him, nor
Arctic cold frozen his extremities. The world he describes is
not the one we live in ; he but echoes the dreams of the
golden age of poets and mythologists, and tells a tale of the
past that never was present. Geology tells the blunt truth
about it, and shows that this world has always been the scene
of strife, pain, misery and death almost ever since life itself
existed in it. If this world is a manufactured article, then
he who made it must have been the essence of folly and bar
barity. As we never hear anything of him now, I presume
he has had what the Scotch call “ a cast of grace ”—has
committed suicide to escape the wretched sight of his own
infernal handiwork. Pity he did not commit suicide before
creating the world!
Genesis ii.—The first three verses of this chapter belong
neither to the first nor the second properly. They were
added to the ancient story by some priest who wished to
impose the Sabbath upon the people beneath his charge, and
who knew that that could not be done without a good round
lie. He says :—
The heaven and the earth icere finished (ii., 1).—The
heavens, of course, neverjfexisted, any more than the Greek
Olympus or the Scandinavian Valhalla. But the earth never
has been finished yet. Geology teaches that the earth is just
�42
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
as much in course of creation now as ever it was. Coral
zoophytes, globigerinse, many plants ; all waves, streams,
rain-showers, frosts and snows, volcanoes and earthquakes, are
engaged in reconstructing and re-arranging the strata of the
earth. The process never was finished and never can be.
The earth, like every other material thing, except probably
ether and atoms, is a growth, not a manufactured thing, as
the Bible falsely teaches.
And he rested on the seventh dag, etc. (ii., 2).—‘‘ Behold I
show you a mystery!” An almighty god spent a whole
eternity in doing absolutely nothing ; five or six thousand
years ago he built the world, at which he worked six days ;
the putting of these few atoms together so exhausted him
that he rested the whole of the seventh day !—and has done
next to nothing since. To doubt this is blasphemy; to
believe it is piety ! If you ridicule it, the bishops and their
creatures will send you into solitary confinement for at least
nine months, and allow you nothing to read but this stupidest
of books!
These are the generations of the heavens and oj the earth,
when they were created, in the day that the Lord God made the
earth and the heavens (ii., 4).—Here beginneth an entirely new
account of the creation by a writer who worshipped Jehovah
not the Elohim. It was the Elohim who created all things in
six days according to Genesis i. This chapter says Jehovah
Elohim did the work in one day—“ in the day that the lord
god made,” etc. Each of the stories is true ; divinely so,
though they so flatly contradict each other, and both equally
contradict known facts. Never mind. Believe both. Con
tradictions and lies constitute nine-tenths of the whole stock
of revealed truth. What then ? It is the fashion to pretend
at least to believe it all, and if you find a flaw, “ mum ” is
the word. To mention it might have the effect of damaging
the interests of spiritual policemen and tyrants “ set over you
in the lord ” and elsewhere, who rob the poor and the
starving to build temples and palaces for their own glory and
amusement.
The Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life (ii., 7).—This, my
reader, is very sublime language, praise the lord! Man’s
body consists, then, of dust of the ground ; and his soul is
nothing but a mixture of atmospheric air, carbonic acid and
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
43
water-vapor, breathed out of the lungs of his maker into his
own I A man’s first breath would expel most of what the
lord breathed into him, and a few subsequent acts of respira
tion would get rid of it all. He was soon without any soul,
except the constant inrush and outrush of air, etc., to and
from his lung.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of
it, etc. (ii., 17).—As divines long since gave up as hopeless
the task of trying to find where the Garden of Eden was, I
shall not notice it, except to remark that in the first chapter
man had all trees given him without exception; here he is
forbidden the tree of knowledge—almost the only one worth
eating of; and, by implication, he was forbidden to eat of the
tree of life also (iii.. 22).
The first man was exceedingly wise, however, without
eating of the tree of knowledge, for he gave names to all
cattle and fowls and beasts of the field ; and he seems to have
been no time about it either. A very precocious youth, cer
tainly ! The Lord could no faster make animals than Adam
gave them appropriate names. What language he used is
not said. Some contend it was Welsh, and I shall not
dispute it.
Adam’s wife was made of one of his own ribs; and yet
he calls her “ bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh
(ii., 21—23). But she was only bone of his bone. Besides,
if he was asleep when that surgical operation was performed
upon him, how did he know that his rib had been extracted
and used in this way ? He preferred Eve to all the animals
he had seen and labelled, as any fool might have done ; but
how did he know that she was like himself, never having seen
his own shape in a mirror ? Oh1 I forgot! God was just
like him, and no doubt told Adam so, and thus he knew his
own shape from his maker’s !
I may say that that bold, bad, blasphemous man, Bishop
Ellicott, in a new commentary on the Bible, has the audacity
to. affirm, in flat contradiction to God’s blessed and most holy
word, that Eve was not made out of a rib of Adam 1 He is
too respectable to send to Holloway Gaol; but wait till he is
dead; then he will go down to Dante’s Inferno, where so
many blaspheming bishops and popes are already “ suffering
the vengeance of eternal fire.”
The second chapter of Genesis closes with the confession
�44
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
that the Elohim or Jahveh had not the decency to clothe the
pair they had made. We need not be surprised. Gods and
goddesses have never been civilised enough to clothe them
selves. All the garments they have ever worn have been
woven and made by mythologists, painters and sculptors.
Not being clad themselves, the Elohim, including gods and
goddesses, never once thought that the human beings they
had made, just like themselves, had any need of garments.
Dr. Watts, in a hymn many of us learnt in childhood, seems
to regret that civilisation should have effected what God had
left undone. The hymn is both pious and edifying__
“ The art of dress did ne’er begin
Till Eve, our mother, learnt to sin ;
When first she put the covering on
Her robe of innocence was gone;
And yet her children vainly boast
Of those sad marks of glory lost!”
John Milton also, in "Paradise Lost," has something to
say upon the subject. That magnificent Zoroastrian or Mani
chaean poem should be read by all worshippers of orthodoxy.
Milton e real hero is Satan; his God is a pitiable thing.
Genesis iii.—The serpent was more subtle (sly) than any
beast of the field which the Lord God had made (iii., 1).—
Yes, the serpent was always an emblem or symbol of wisdom ;
though it required very little of that quality to out-wit the
Lord God and the first pair. Of course the story is a
" mystery ” in the old-fashioned sense of that word. The
language is emblematical, and intended to show that all gin
and evil, misery and death, spring from the union of the
sexes. It was written by some vile ascetic.
By the way, how is it all clothiers and manufacturers of
textile fabrics do not adopt the serpent as their symbol or as
their arms or trade mark ? The whole of their art is due to
the action of the serpent. Had he not been wiser than the
gods, clothes had never been adopted.
Lest anyone should be bold enough to question if the
serpent ever held the reported conversation with the woman,
let it be remembered that in " ASsop’s Fables ” nothing is
more common than for animals to talk; and nursery tales
and folklore abound with similar incidents. "Be not faith
less, but believing.” " Ye believe in AEsop, believe also in
Genesis.'5 If you doubt the speaking of the serpent, re
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
45
member Balaam’s donkey ; if you are tempted to doubt the
donkey-tale, remember that of the serpent. By thus com
paring scripture with scripture you may assure yourself of
the truth of one absurdity by reflecting upon another equally
bad. If you should still be tempted to doubt, remember that
all doubters will be damned; reflect upon the flames of hell
until the conception drives you half mad. You will be able
to believe anything then.
And Adam and Eve hid themselves from the presence of the
Lord God amongst the trees of the garden (iii., 8).—You need
not wonder now how the serpent dodged the Lord God and
got into the garden unknown to its owner ! They were out of
his presence ! He could not see them ; and had to call them
to find out where they were! If I wrote here that I hid
from the Lord God, and got out of his presence, I might go
to Holloway Gaol for blasphemy ; and if I pretended it was
revelation I was writing, and raised the late Archbishop of
Canterbury from the dead to prove my mission, Dr. Benson
and his party would give me an extra twelvemonths’ of soli
tary confinement for disturbing existing arrangements, while
the resurrected defunct would have to be disposed of or
" removed ” as fast as possible. God could not see far in
those early days, evidently ; and his presence was no more
extensive than Adam’s. In process of time he grew in bulk
till he became infinite—that is, ruptured and destroyed him
self like jEsop’s ambitious frog; and now men can no more
find God than God could find Adam and Eve. He is dis
sipated, like the gas of a ruptured balloon, or, rather, like
the vital spirit of the torn and tattered creeds.
With a kangaroo bound I leap over the other incidents of
the story, and alight plump upon the upshot of the first sin.
“ Behold the man (literally the Adam—that is, both the man
and the woman) is became as one of us, to know good and evil
(iii., 22).—I told you the creators were more than one.
They speak in the plural—one of us. The volumes of learned
rubbish written to explain this would surprise one, if he did
not reflect that twenty useless books are written for every
good one, and that for every great book you might find a
waggon-load of literary rubbish. This mystery is usually
explained by means of the trinity in unity—a mystery that
will clear up almost everything in theology. One of the
three is spoken to by the Elohim 1 That is, the unity speaks
�46
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
to one of the trinity, or to all three. That is, one of them at
least talks to himself—a sign of weak intellect generally.
That is, they all three speak with one voice, so lodged that
all can use it at once, or one of them alone. Where the said
voice was placed, or how it was managed I know not; I was
not there. As this communistic or socialistic voice uttered
what all three equally thought, each of the three heard with
his own pair of ears what he himself and his two companions
uttered; and thus each of the triad came to understand for
himself what all three knew equally well before all three
combined in this co-operative manner to pronounce it for the
benefit of himself and two companions. Ah, me! My last
sentence, I fear, is a bit mixed; so am I. It is that trinity
that has done it. I feel as poor Captain Webb did. probably,
in the Niagara whirlpools, so I’ll make for the shore.
So he drove out the man (literally, the Adam) iii., 24.__
This was an act of vengeance blind and cruel. It was an act
of jealousy. For the three, that is the one, felt afraid of Adam
and Eve. They knew too much. So they persecuted them,
just as the bigots persecute now. The gods and bigots have
always claimed a monopoly of knowledge: being densely
stupid themselves, they have always done their worst to pre
vent other people growing wise. To claim a monopoly of
knowledge is merely to wall up your windows with the object
of shutting in all the sunlight, and to find yourself in absolute
darkness as the result of such folly. Had gods and bigots
(they are both of the same species) been successful, the world
would never have emerged from brutal savagery. The act of
expulsion from Eden was one of mere spite—“ test he put,
forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat and live
for ever.v These wicked gods begrudgpd man knowledge.
The serpent assisted him, and he won it in spite of them
*
Then they deprived him of immortality. Here, too, the
monopoly proved fruitless. Men die; but the race of man
still subsists. The gods die, and leave no successors. Most of
them are dead. The Bible gods are as dead as the dead
languages that record their deeds.
When the horse was gone God shut the stable-door, and
set cherubs with a flaming sword to guard it! That is a
specimen of divine wisdom. Had he but set that guard at
first the serpent might never have got in ; had he not made
the serpent he could never have tempted Eve. Inexperience
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
47
and folly mark the whole of this story of the creation and
fall. Nothing to equal it in these particulars can be found
elsewhere. Most other nursery tales have some sense and
some humanity in them ; this is destitute of both, And yet
this silliest of stories is taught still as divine truth even in
Board schools, at the expense of the ratepayers. And those
who laugh at it are sent to prison, for the gratification of
bishops and other humbugs who fatten upon falsehoods and
grow rich out of the credulity of the poor.
Genesis IV.—This chapter gives an account of Cain and
Abel. The former seems to have been a vegetarian and a
sort of Buddhist, who refused to kill animals, lienee he
offered the lord the fruits of the ground, which were scorn
fully refused. Abel offered him some fine fat rams, which
delighted him.
I presume the story was invented' to
throw discredit upon agriculture, inasmuch as ploughing
or digging the soil disarranges the order of divine providence f
while the mere cattle-breeder was supposed to be living in a
state of friendship with the deities, only because he lived in a
state of nature. The writer or inventor of the story was in
favor of the nomad life of the desert, and so represented his
god to be of the same sentiments. Cain, the farmer, should
have had nothing to do with the shepard’s god; he should
have invented an agricultural god for his own particular
■ benefit. And so to-day, Atheists and heretics can never please
the gods that now exist; if they ever please any at all, they
must make gods for themselves, as others have done. By the
way, it is easier to invent a whole pantheon of gods than even
one priest. A priest must be a man of some kind ; a mere
name or epithet will do for a god.
The writer of Hebrews (xi., 2) says that faith was the
element that made Abel’s sacrifice acceptable to the Lord •
while the want of it led to the rejection of Cain’s. That is
sheer nonsense. The Lord wanted his breakfast, and a few
good fat lambs were just what his appetite required. Besides,
the way this writer puts it would lead to the conclusion that
Cain, the man of no faith, persecuted to the death Abel, who
had plenty of it! That is absurd. If Cain really did kill
Abel in this religious quarrel, he must have been the more
fanatical—that is, the better believer; and Abel the worse.
It never has been otherwise ; the man of no faith could not
persecute a believer. He might punish any other fault, bu
�*
4
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
not his religion, unless the religion led to open or secret acts
of violence, and then not the religion, but the acts of violence
would be punished.
Beloved reader, the lesson we learn from the story of those
ancient brothers is one of deep significance.
It will be
observed that they quarrelled merely about religion, a thing
neither of them understood. Before this we may suppose
they had lived as became brothers. Now in their full
manhood they fell out. Up to this time they seem to have had
no religion; consequently all went merry as a marriage-bell
with them. No sooner did they betake themselves to religion
than they differed, grew warm, because the thing intoxicated
them. They fought, and the stronger killed the, weaker! It
is a significant fact that the first time religion is introduced
in the Bible it leads to fractricide. From that day till now
the history of the Jewish-Christian religion is a history of
quarrels, lies and blood. Therefore, have nothing to do
with it.
And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel, thy brother ?
—iv., 9. Ah! If the Lord had only been present at the
quarrel, he might have prevented the murder ! But provi
dence and policemen are generally out of the way when most
needed. They are always at hand when sacrifices, offerings,
and rewards are to be presented.
The sentence pronounced upon Cain is full of nonsense.
The earth was cursing him (verse 11) ; would refuse to yield
him her strength when tilled! Why, land saturated with blood,
animal or human, is enriched thereby, and produces better
crops for being so manured! Nor does it know the difference
between a brother’s blood and that of a dog. Scarcely can
you take a step in the Bible without stumbling upon some
gross superstition. So far is the earth from cursing those
who saturate it with blood, that it yields better crops, for the
murderer and anyone else for it.
(To be continued in No. 4).
Printed and Published bv Ramsey and Eootei, at 2S-Stonecutter Street, E.C<
V YTVR&’T"UllXl
Ill AA'iiU'XA IRK
�NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
No. 2 ] blows AT THE BIBLE,
[id
BY
JOSEPH SYMES.
•«'.
t
This gentleman was the first that ever lived ; his father’s
-name was God (Luke iii., 38), and his mother was the
earth or the ground (Genesis ii., 7). Adam was made, or
begotten, or manufactured, or born, or produced twice at
least. In the first instance he was made the saline day with
his wife, viz., on the first Saturday that ever dawned ; and
after this gigantic effort the creator dropped work, “ rested
and was refreshed” (Exodus xxxi., 17) during • the first of
Sundays, and has, we belUye, done no work to speak of since.
his first creation Adam found the world prepared for
him. As Hood, one of his late descendants sung, he came
----------- “ tenderly ushered in
'
To a prospect all bright and burnished
*
No tenant he for life s back slums----He comes to the world as a gentleman comes
To a lodging ready furnished.”
-5 y
; r
There was the earth, in all its vastness of glory, furnished
with a crystalline roof (time, alas! has destroyed it long
since), in which were fixed the sun, moon, and stars—now,
sad to say, left to wander through space as best they can,
with no firmament to hold them fast 1 What would the
astronomer of to-day give to gaze upon the world as our first
fathei’ saw it 1 Overhead that beautiful sapphire vault, roof
at once of the lower world and floor of the musicians of the
gods ! What a pity it was ever permitted to decay I Had it
been kept in proper repair the theologian might confound his
sceptical foes by merely pointing upwards, and dramatically
crying, “Behold!”
�18
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
When Adam first opened his eyes upon the vegetable world
no parasites were found anywhere, and a fungus had never a
chance to grow. The leaves of the tree grew, but never de
cayed ; the blossoms consolidated into fruit, the fruit ripened,
but it never fell. The animals, too, were in a most extra
ordinary state. The lion played with the lamb, and the cat
with the mouse; if the hawk chased the sparrow it was
merely in fun ; and the veriest cormorant to be found would
as soon have dreamt of swallowing a crow-bar as a fish. In
those days all beasts of prey browsed in the meadows ; and
the whales and sharks grew fat upon nought but sea-weeds.
Then it was that tigers had neither fangs nor claws, the
wasps no stings, the serpents no poison ; mosquitoes had not
vet left their eggs, the locusts had never begun to devour,
and phylloxera and the Colorado beetle had never cast mur
derous eyes upon vine, grape or potato.
These were delightful times when our first parents sunned
hemselves in “Eden’s bonny yard,” untroubled by the
nought of debt or danger, untrammelled with skirts or pan
taloons, big romping babies that they were, the very image
of their father I
But Adam’s second Advent was different. In the first in
stance he was made, but of what material we know not: when
he was made the second time it was of dust (Genesis ii., 7).
Whether the dust was moistened and worked up with water,
like plaster of Paris, is not said. A modem man consists
chiefly of water ?• Adam’s one element was dust. Whether it
was stone dust, or clay dust, or saw dust, or gold dust, or
diamond dust, or brick dust, or coal dust, or a mingling of
them, we cannot say. Divine wisdom has not seen fit to en
lighten us further than to condescend to inform us that our
first father was made of the dust of the ground ; and as the
dust of the ground differs so in different regions, we must
leave the solution of this interesting problem till the Great
Day, when the whole of his descendants will, no doubt, rush
to him simultaneously and exclaim, “ Oh 1 Reverend sire, of
what dust did thy creator form thee ?” Adam s reply must,
I am sorry to add, be postponed sine die.
As Adam consisted of dust, and as sons and fathers are
usually of the same material. I presume it is but logical to
infer that Adam’s father—or God—was also of the dust. One
thing is certain, he has been turned to dust or something
�THE LIFE OF ADAM.
19
less substantial for many ages ; and his worshippers can
no more find a relic of his than they can one of Eve’s hair
pins.
When Adam was made on this second occasion, and the
dust was worked up into its required form, proportions, sym
metry, and consistency, his maker “ breathed into his nostrils
the breath of life, and man (Adam) became a living soul.”
The result must be pronounced wonderful and altogether
different from what might have been expected. It must be re
membered that he breathed into Adam, that is, the creator
breathed out of himself or expired his own breath ; and that
breath would have poisoned Adam if he had been previously
alive, for it must have been highly charged with carbonic acid.
So it appears that what would kill a live man will make a
dead man live.
Of course, we should not believe this story if we found it
in Homer—unless we had been coaxed to believe it by a
promise of heaven, or frightened to it by a threat of hell ; but
seeing it is in the Bible, and reflecting that we must be
damned if we doubt it, it seems safest to believe it.
When God the second time created Adam, he certainly did
not improve upon his work ; for this time Adam found the
earth bare ; he himself was the very first living thing created.
When he awoke to life there was nothing to eat, no one to
speak to. A little later he saw a garden rise suddenly
around him, and then beasts, and birds, and insects crowded
into life. But none of them suited him, though the creator
seems to have tempted him to amalgamate with beasts. The
Lord God thought it not good for Adam to be alone, and so
gave him a sleeping draught of extra power, and while he lay
in deep repose, proceeded to vivisect him. Opening the side
of the sleeper, the surgeon-creator extracted a rib, and then
stitched up the wound, leaving Adam a lighter if not a wiser
man. Of the extracted rib the creator now made a woman.
When Adam’s skeleton is dug up it may easily be identified
by being a rib short.
Here we face a decided difficulty. If Adam was an ordinary
man, a rib of his would make but a very small woman, and
merely a bone woman after all. A woman so small must
have been a very poor “ help meet ” for Adam, even if con
sisting of bones and flesh and all things human; and a
woman of bone, whatever hpr size or shape, must have been
�20
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
of far less value than one of ivory, not to mention marble or
the precious metals.
This, however, is merely a sceptical difficulty, and decidedly
dangerous. We prefer sticking to God’s holy word, though
we cannot tell how a rib, no more than a pound or so in
weight, could become a woman, weighing 140 lbs. For if
the rest of the material was taken from some other place,
then manifestly only one hundred-and-fortieth part of Eve
was due to that rib; and, therefore, the Lord God did not
make that extracted rib a woman, as the story avers. It would
have required all Adam’s ribs and nearly all the rest of him
to make a woman of respectable proportions as compared with
himself. Still it is better to believe than be damned.
After his second creation, as just related, Adam—in com
pany with Eve and the animals which he had named (if not
baptised) before he lost his rib—lived very pleasantly in
Paradise. This was a garden, as every Sunday scholar knows,
“planted ” in Eden, where grew the tree of life, of which if
one ate he would never die (Genesis iii., 22), and the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, of which the happy couple
were forbidden to eat on pain of death.
Thus says holy writ. But the sceptic will be sure to ask
what sort of a tree it was ? 'Why they were forbidden to eat
of it ? and how they could be awed by a threat they could
not understand ? These deep questions are far too profound
for finite minds to solve, and we must leave them beneath
the dark veil divine revelation has seen fit to shroud them in.
Alas!
“ The best laid schemes o’ mice and gods
Gang aft agley.”
In stocking the world with animals the creator or creators
had manufactured the serpent, and the “ serpent was more
subtle than any beast of the field,” so much so that he began
to talk; and soon he showed himself a more powerful
and successful orator, reasoner and commander than all the
creators together. The creator told Adam and Eve not to
eat the tree or touch it, lest they should die. The serpent
said, “Pooh! pooh. It’s the best tree in all the garden—is
good for food, is pleasant and agreeable; and, besides, it
possesses the most astonishing educational properties ; for you
no sooner eat this fruit than you open your eyes, and know
�THE LIFE OF ADAM.
21
good and evil; in a word, Sir, Madam, yon no sooner swallow
a little of this delicious fruit than you become like the
gods themselves, who, out of jealousy, have forbidden you to
touch it.”
No pedlar ever succeeded better, no quack doctor ever
gained an easier victory. Before this, Eve would not have
touched that tree for the world; now she felt that she could
eat every apple it bore. The serpent’s eloquence and subtlety
prevailed ; Eve ate two apples on the spot, and ran off with
one in each hand to her husband, whom she speedily induced
to follow her example and eat of this marvellous fruit. The
serpent now chuckled with delight at the success of his exploit;
and Adam and Eve felt no worse, nor very much better for
the new food.
Their deity, however, who had probably seen the serpent
enter Paradise, suspected something wrong. He descended
in haste, and began to look about among the trees and bushes
for the disobedient pair. Adam heard him rustling through
the long grass, and hid himself among the bushes, rightly
judging that his maker was not in the sweetest of tempers.
At length in desperation he cried, “ Adam, where art thou ?
Hast thou eaten of that tree ?” Not daring to hide longer,
Adam now slowly crawled out of his hiding-place, begging his
majesty not to be so angry with him, as in truth, the woman
had pressed him to eat the fruit in question.
Still, the deity was not pacified, and he pronounced a curse
upon Adam and his descendants, upon the ground, upon the
pool’ woman, and upon the serpent that had deceived them ;
and then went back again to his mansion, his wrath still
burning as it will do for ever and ever.
This story, gentle reader, is extremely instructive. You
know that there are thorns in the world ; they are the results
of the above crime. Mothers, as you know, bear their off
springs in pain and sorrow; it is because Eve ate an apple or
two. All serpents go upon their belly; that is because the
first serpent, who, no doubt, crawled upon his back, temptec.
Eve to sin. Before that date pain and death were known
only by name ; since then there has been little else. Hell, at
that date, was peopled only by devils, and even they were not
regular denizens, but merely occasional visitors; ever since
about that date, men and women, and children have been
dropping into it in ever increasing numbers, whereas, not
�22
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
a human being would ever have sniffed so much as a whiff of
its sulphur, if Eve and Adam had not sinned. All which
shows what sort of a thing divine justice is, and demonstrates
that, of all beings known, none need so much to be civilised
as the gods.
Adam and Eve were next driven out of Paradise to prevent
their becoming gods, the older gods being afraid of the
possible consequences.
They knew that the serpent was
too subtle for the best of them, and they, no doubt, feared
that under his tuition Adam and Eve, should they eat of
the Tree of Life, would be more than a match for them.
Therefore, driving the unfortunate couple out, they guarded
the gate of Paradise by cherubs with a flaming sword.
Whether this was a Damascus blade or Toledo, I cannot say;
antiquaries having never yet lighted upon ii. Perhaps Dr.
Schliemann, when he has finished Troy, Mycene, and other
classical sites, may take a trip to Paradise to explore that
region.
Some little time before this expulsion, the guilty pair took
to vestments. They had been created naked ; nor did their
maker see the necessity of clothing them. Taking the hint,
no doubt, from the “ aprons ” he saw them wearing on the
day he cursed them, the creator next turned butcher, and
killed two beasts and flayed them (we hope he did not flay
them alive); then becoming a tailor, he made the skins into
two coats d la mode, no doubt, for the man and woman. Clothes
had not yet become “ differentiated,” and both sexes dressed
alike; coats, then, were all-sufficient; it was a later
civilisation that first demanded skirts and pantaloons.
After leaving Paradise, this interesting pair were blessed
with a family of sons and daughters, who intermarried with
each other, and came to but little good.
The eldest son
murdered the second, and then became a vagabond. Of the
rest we know nothing; though to judge from their
descendants, they were little to boast of. Adam himself
lived no more than 930 years and then died. If any should
fancy that he lived too long, let them reflect upon the misery
he might have inflicted upon the world if he had never eaten
the apple! In that case he would have lived for ever and
have been an endless nuisance to mankind. Eve, I presume,
never did die, for the Bible does not record any such event in
�---- 5,--t——*---------------------
L~------
THE LIFE OF ADAM.
23
her history ; and I should not like to incur the “ plagues ”
that will fall on those who “ add to ” the Word of God.
Such gentle reader, is a summary of the life of Adam (and
Eve in part) as given in the Bible. It is very interesting and
instructive, is it not ? The lessons we learn are : never to
listen to a talking, garrulous serpent; never to eat forbidden
fruit, nor too much of what is lawful; and if we should ever
have a chance to eat the fruit of the “ Tree of the knowledge
of good and evil,” and also of the “ Tree of life,” the fate of
Adam and Eve suggests that we should eat of the latter first,
for that, it seems, will ensure our immortality, eat of the
other while we may.
LOVE
NOT THE
WORLD.
Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world.
If any man love the world, the love of the father is not in
him.”—1 John ii., 15.
The apostle John, or indeed, all the apostles together, might
utter this cry on any Exchange in the world, from morning
to night, and from January to December, but he would make
no impression. The assembled merchants, traders, stock
brokers, and what-not would vote him a nuisance, laugh at his
fanaticism, chaff him and quiz him, or send for a policeman
to take him in charge. The most pious present as well as the
profane would all concur that the apostle was out of place ;
that he should keep his sermon for Sunday, a day specially
set apart in Protestant lands for hearing denunciations of the
week’s transactions and for forming resolutions and pious
resolves—to be—more worldly during the week to come.
And if our Exchanges and emporia are not the appropriate
places for such sermons, where shall they be preached. In
the churches, of course : where, no doubt, the preacher would
be listened to with profound and prayerful attention; his
words would sink deep into the hearts of the clergy, who
would confess their sins, bewail their worldly-mindedness,
acknowledge themselves “ miserable sinners,” as they really
are, and declare that they desired only to hold the world with
a slack hand, that they really valued nothing so little as the
�24
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
dung and dross which constituted the world’s wealth, that
they cared only for the wealth that did not fade, the riches
of the kingdom of heaven ; and would pour out volumes of
twaddle and heartless excuses, and resolutions never to be
kept.
Tell the Archbishop of Canterbury that he will be shut
out of heaven or be cl apt into hell, and you hardly impress
him. Tell him his palace is on fire, or his bank broken, his
railway and other shares rendered useless through some com
mercial disaster, and he would turn white as a sheet and be
ready to give up the ghost. Of course his grace does not
really love the world and the things in it; but then it looks
so much as if he did that neither you nor I, the Father, Son,
nor Holy Ghost, nor all together, with the Archbishop to
assist us, could tell the difference between real worldly love
and his grace’s counterfeit.
If you and I, having none of the grace of God, had a
splendid palace to live in, and £15,000 per annum to live
upon, and great titles and huge honors into the bargain, we
should almost certainly love them. But an archbishop has
divine grace sufficient for his very trying 'position, and his
strength is just sufficient to his day, and so exactly balances
his income, perquisites and privileges, that- this! Bight g,ev.
Father in God can love the world and the Father (?.e., himself) both at once and about equally. And besides God the
Father is not quite so particular now-a-days. In olden
time, when he, like the Pope, ruled mtteh of the world, he
-insisted upon all his rights and monopolies; bow he has to
beg a favor where he could formerly command ; and, on the
principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, he accepts
what he can get—just as all his followers do.
In dwelling profoundly upon this text, andhwith the assist
ance of the Holy Ghost who or which inspired it, I note that
it is entirely out of harmony with, I won^ say the world,
but the churches of to-day; and, therefore, either the text
or the churches must be faulty. The question is, Which?
It cannot be supposed that so many churches are at fault ;
they would enlighten each other, and naturally criticise
each other to so great an extent that - any serious deviation
from the truth amongst Christians is next to impossible,
especially on so plain a subject as loving the world or the
Father.
�LOVE NOT THE WORLD.
25
I presume it would be next to impossible for a person to
have a strong liking for anything and yet not know it. If
the Christians love the world, its wealth and pleasures, its
pomps and vanities, they can hardly be ignorant of the fact.
And if they love the Father to any great extent, they must
know it, whether lie does or not. It is also very unlikely
that Christians could hide their preferences from their
neighbors. If they love the Father and despise the world,
people must know it; if they loved the world and despised
the Father, they could not hide it. A tree is known by its
fruits ; and people’s likes and dislikes are ascertained by their
conduct.
Well, I know of no church that does not love the world
most intensely ; I know of no people who love it more than
those who pretend to renounce it. And the text says the
love of the father is not in such people. No doubt the text
is a blunder. The Holy Ghost and John were but babies
compared with the Christians of to-day. They thought that
religion was to be distinguished from the world ; the moderns
have discovered that God and the world are both one, and
that to love the Father is to love the world, and to renounce
the world would amount to renouncing the Father, so they
stick jb both. Bravo ! this is a grand discovery. And the
Church was not long in making it when once those stupid
apostles, who crucified the flesh, were dead and out of the
way. Christians to-day crucify the flesh of others and spare
their own—another great modern improvement.
To be sure, profane and illogical persons will say that if
Christian conduct is right, the Bible must be wrong. Not
at all. You must not understand either'party seriously.
When the Bible bids you not to love the world, it means the
other world, not this ; and when Christians to-day profess
to think lightly of the world, they mean “ the world to
come.” Christianity is a huge, grim, practical joke. The
Church started by renouncing the world, and culminated in
•the possession of most of it; then the civil power had forcibly
to wring from her her ill-gotten gains.
Churchmen still roll in riches and bedeck themselves with
honors, though they profess to be followers of that Jesus who
for their sakes became poor, and to be the spiritual descendants
of men who voluntarily went about in sheep-skins and goat
skins. In their baptism, by godfathers and godmothers, they
�26
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
renounce the world with its pomps and vanities, the flesh and
the devil. This serves them for life. It is a wholesale con
fession, followed by plenary absolution for all the sins they
will ever commit. Having thus hoodwinked the blessed
Trinity, they ever after love the world with all their heart,
and with all their mind, and with all their soul, and with all
their strength, and their neighbor, the flesh, as themselves.
I feel no doubt that Christianity and the churches’
hypocrisy will some day stand exposed before all men, and
become the world’s laughing-stock. But the people are so
blind and priest-ridden that it must take long to accomplish
the work. In the meantime our duty is plain—to expose, to
ridicule this greatest of shams with all our might.
THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
•• Ye worship ge know not what: we know what we worship:
for salvation is of the Jews."—John iv., 22.
Here is a text of three clauses, two false and one true.
Salvation is of the Jews !” This is absolutely contrary to
fact.
The Jews are a lost race themselves, and never
afforded salvation to anybody. For well nigh 1,500 years
they lived, if their chronology can be trusted, in Palestine.
But during that long period they produced no philosopher,
no great general, no architect, no discoverer, no scientist, no
statesman, an indifferent poet or two, no inventor. From
what, then, have the Jews contributed to save the world ?
The ancient Jews are remembered for almost nothing else
than sundry superstitions ; and superstitions are the curse,
not the salvation of man. Had the Jews never existed, the
Bible never been written, what would the world miss ? That
Jews in modern times have distinguished themselves I readily
admit; but never except in the midst of Gentilism and under
its inspiration.
Thus the last third of the text is disposed of as an empty
boast.
‘•We know what we worship.” This also is absolutely
untrue. No Jew then, no Jew nor Christian since, ever
�THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
27
knew what he worshipped. The only persons who really do
know their god or gods are those that worship tangible or
visible objects. The worshippers of the golden calf, sun
.and fire worshippers, the devotees of stocks and blocks, of
trees and running streams, knew something of their deities,
though not much ; for had they known the truth they would
not, could not have worshipped.
This, too, is purely an empty boast, though quite worthy
of the man who told people he lived before Abraham
(Jolrn viii., 58), that he “ came down from heaven ” (John vi.,
38), that “ all power was given unto him in heaven and in
earth” (Matt, xxviii., 18), and that he could raise the dead
again to life (John xi., 25—27). His was just the spirit
of every fanatic : “ I am right, you are wrong. I am divine,
you are stupid. I shall be saved, you will be damned—unless
you submit to me and adopt my creed.” It is a thousand pities
there was no Freethinker present when Jesus and the woman
of Samaria were conversing ; for he could very soon have
confounded both parties, and have exposed the pretended
knowledge of deity which Mary’s son was boasting of.
Though probably the world might have had one more martyr
to enroll in the “ noble army ;” for Jesus and his disciples (as
soon as they arrived) would no doubt have flung the sceptic
into “Jacob’s well.”
Finding no shred of truth in the second and third clauses,
let us turn to the first. Every Christian will inform you that
he worships “God,” and all the sects of Christendom would
have you believe that they all in common worship one and
the same God ; but of this they can have no proof whatso
ever, and facts are against them,
I. Jews, Mahommedans, and Unitarians have a God who is
one and indivisible. But that is only one section of the
orthodox God. This God is the father of all, be it remem
bered—The Father. He is the father of the earth and
heavens, the sun, planets, comets, stars ; the father of sun
shine and storm, of flood and fire, of earthquake, volcano,
epidemic and famine ; the father of health and of all diseases;
the father of vampires, serpents, snakes, fleas, bugs, mosquitos,
Colorado beetles, locusts, sharks, lions, tigers, jackals, hyaenas,
trichina, and tape-worms; the father of murderers, robbers,
pirates, popes, persecutors, and devils! What a family!
And every one of them all is the very image of his dad.
�r
”
■! ! » iW.rw-'-5 i
28
i
--------------- .1.
lW—
< K
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
What a father! What a God ! What an object of worship !
Verily I do not wonder that persons who can worship such a
deity call Atheists fools—it is the very highest compliment
they could pay us. No doubt the inmates of Bedlam, in like
manner, regard all outsiders as idiots. And we cannot help
it.
We need never wonder that this God’s worshippers
behaved so idiotically and cruelly while in power.
II. Most Christians add two or more extra wings or sections
to their deity, and increase him, at least by about two-thirds.
They have the father, of course, and the Catholics very
logically supply a fourth wing or section called the “ Mother,”
while Protestants half acknowledge and half repudiate this
addition. All, however, agree, except Unitarians, to accept
the Son and Holy Ghost. The fathei’ is, they say, such from
all eternity. But the son is of exactly the same age as his
father, and of the same size, and never was any smaller. He
was begotten, though never bom, from all eternity. These
two never began to be, yet one of them is father of the other;
and, as far as a profane Atheist can perceive, either of them
might equally well be the father or the son of the other. One
wonders if the divine two ever get confused over the matter
themselves! Possibly: they are both alike, both of an age,
height, complexion, and it is not known how the one dis
tinguishes himself from the other. They have never seen
themselves, for certain, for they are both infinite, both occupy
exactly the same space, they cannot move an inch out of each
other’s way, and no looking-glass could be large enough to
reflect them, either singly or together. That is to be regretted.
It is a pity they cannot see themselves.
Then, in addition to the two just named, there is the Holy
Ghost. He, she, or it, is also infinite and eternal, and also
occupies the same same space exactly that the Father and
Son fill so absolutely. The three are most unfortunate.
They are each infinite, and there is but one infinite room for
them to occupy. Three infinite persons in one infinite room
must be awfully uncomfortable, especially in hot weather. I
suspect they suffocated each other long ago, or died of unen
durable pressure.
To make things themselves a little more pleasant in their infi
nitely overcrowded one-roomed house, about 2,000 years ago it
was decided that the Son should “ be born again,” and this time
become a baby of 17 lbs. or so. It was done. This time he
L,!
�THE MYSTERY OF SALVATION.
29
had a different father, too. Tired of his old dad, he chose
the Holy Ghost as his father this time, and the Holy Ghost
chose a mother for him. The reader will not ask me to ex
plain—I cannot. And all Christian divines, commentators,
and gods are as helpless as I am in the matter. However,
here we are, face to face, and at the same time back to back,
with the Christian God ! How beautifully simple the Gospel
is ! “A wayfaring man, though a fool (provided he is a fool,
that is), need not err therein.”
“ He that runneth may
read ”—the posters are so large. 1st. A Father infinite and
eternal; 2nd, a Son, ditto ; 3rd, a Holy Ghost ditto; 4th,
a woman finite and rather young ; 5th, the Son of this woman
and the Holy Ghost, formerly the infinite and eternal son
of the father only, begotten but not bom. These five or six
persons are the two God the Fathers, the two God the Sons,
and the Holy Ghost and Mary. Here we have a double
Trinity in Unity ; and thus the Christians are twice as well
off in gods as they have ever directly let the world know.
Verily “great is the mystery of godliness ! ” “Who can
know it?” The Christian God is the most unmitigated sham
ever palmed off upon a credulous world. In fact, when they
do not pay their devotions to Mammon, to sensuous pleasures,
or other physical deities, all their worship is directed to they
“ know not what.” I would offer them a reward of £1,000,000
sterling, if I had it, on condition that they told me what
their God is. They much need the money, but could never
get it, for they “ worship they know not what.” And if men
were wise enough to see how they are duped, they would pay
not a farthing more for or to the Gospel until its priests in
formed the public who or what it is they worship. In that
case Christianity would be starved out in a few weeks. That
fate awaits it.
ANANIAS
AND
S A P P H I R A.
“And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many
as heard these things.”—Acts v., 11.
No doubt! No doubt! Peter was now in power : the Church
was at his feet. Peter, who always had a keen eye for the
main chance; who gave up nothing himself for or to his
�30
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
master except under promise of one hundredfold more in the
time that then was, and in the world to come life ever
lasting (Matt, xix., 28, 29). The most unconscionable money
lender or bill-discounter in the world never excelled that.
Peter was determined to do his best, while the new converts
were at the white heat of their “first love” and religious
excitement, to realise the promise of Jesus and secure the
one-hundredfold here, at any rate, whatever might be his fate
in the “ life to come! ”
In this respect, the followers of St. Peter, whether at Rome
or elsewhere, have closely copied his meritorious example,
and done their utmost to win the one-hundredfold, or the
millionfold, if that were possible.
Of course Peter soon saw that it would be highly impolitic
to allow these two, Ananias and his wife Sapphira, to give in
just what they pleased to the exchequer of the Church—
others might follow the example, and thus much wealth be
diverted from the proper channel.
Besides, something bold and terrible needed to be done
to impress the rabble, inside and outside the Church, with
the power of this new movement, and especially the power
of the leaders. It was not legitimate power they were con
tent to wield, but the power of superstition. The Church
started life without a single grain of objective truth; and to
support itself was compelled to have constant recourse tothe supernatural—that is, to fraud, to tricks, and to
jugglery.
Now, if Peter could only make away with
Ananias and Sapphira, and give it out that the Holy Ghost
had done it, what a deep and horrible impression it would
create ! and how effectually it would prevent anyone follow
ing the example of these two! So the deed was done.
I now proceed to give definite reasons for holding the
opinion that the Holy Ghost did not kill these two, nor any
other person of the Trinity :—
1. Those divine persons never hated lying—most of what
they themselves are reported to have said is of that stamp.
2. They not only indulged in this weakness themselves,
but had friends who did the same. Abraham told lies about
Sarah ; Jacob deceived his poor old blind father; Jesus said
he came down from heaven—a manifest falsehood; Peter
swore he did not know Jesus! Now, if the Holy Ghost
wanted to make an example of any person why not of one
�of those ? ’Tis tree, Jesus and Peter, if reports are to be
credited, did die violent deaths. Is that to be regarded as
proof that the Holy Ghost killed them for lying ?
3. It has never been the practice of the Holy Ghost,
Father, or Son to kill people for lying. If it had been, in
what age of the church would there have been half-a-dozen
saints left alive ? Why, there never could have been a
church without wholesale lying. The worst thing that could
happen to any Church is the dissemination of truth. Lying!
In it the Trinity, the church, and all other shams * live and
move, and have their being.” What! let the Holy Ghost go
through the church to-day and slay all that preach false
doctrine, and that do little else than teach conscious and un
conscious lies, and. the churches would be in the condition of
Sennacherib’s army—they would waken up next morning to
‘■'find that they were all dead corpses !” (Isaiah xxxvii., 36).
No, my brethren, the Holy Ghost never did kill liars ; they
are his very best friends.
But if the Holy Ghost did not kill Ananias and Sapphira,
' who did ? That is the question. There can be only one
answer, and that is—Peter was their murderer. Look at the
facts. They had offended Peter. He was furious with them.
Both these persons died suddenly in a place where Peter and
the officials of the Church were assembled. There were
certain “ young men ” who at once disposed of the bodies.
And that was the end of it.
1. Are Christians satisfied with the story and the cOTiduct
of reter ?
2. Could Peter possibly stand forth in a worse light ?
3. How was it he did not challenge investigation ? Why
were the corpses so suddenly, and without the least examina
tion, buried ?
4. Would not an honest man or church have done some
thing to clear themselves of suspicion in such a case ?
5. What would a few able detectives and an honest
coroner’s jury have brought to light, had they investigated
the Petro-Ananias and Sapphira case ? It is a fortunate
event for Christianity that it rose in an age and time when
coroner’s inquests were unknown, for in modern London the
killing of these two would have resulted in the sudden death
of the Church as well. And this double murder will even
tually help to kill the Church. Murder will out; and the
�-r
*
r
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
blood of those two cries, not to heaven, but to common sense,
for vengeance, and vengeance it will have.
There is nothing in the character of Peter to warrant or
even suggest his innocence; and fanaticism and crime Jjave
generally gone hand in hand. Witness the bloodthirsty
temper of Moses, of Joshua, of Abraham, of Jephtha, of the
Jews who murdered Jesus, and of Jesus who threatened
worse than murder against all who disbelieved and opposed
*
him ; witness the wholesale and horrible persecutions of they- *
Ghurch in all ages. Let any candid man weigh the matter,
as if he were on a jury trying the case, and say whether,b..
having regard to the whole circumstances and the. almost
invariable character of apostles, prophets, and religious
leaders in all countries and ages, the chances are not a
thousand to one that ■ Peter, the first of Popes, did what
Popes have rarely hesitated to do—committed murder for the sake of the Church’s peace, and covered his crime by a dread- o
ful falsehood in the interest of truth?
1 yLastly. I care not much who murdered Ananias and
Sapphira—they were murdered, whether Peter or the Holy
Ghost did it: the one had as a good right to kill as the
other. And even if either had possessed that right, the two
-I
offenders should, in common justice, have had a fail’ and open
trial. Instead of which, they were murdered, without the
least chance of self-defence.
We $eed not wonder that Christians to-day keep Mr. Brad
laugh from his seat by brute force ; they have never been
friends of justice—except for themselves. Their divine book
i
gives no example of an honest criminal trial ; the highest
judicial proceedings known to the Bible and the blessed »
Trinity are just those of the barbarians or of the “ unspeak- \
able Turk,” when he exhibits himself in his worst possible
fashion.
Reader, instead of “ remembering Lot’s wife,” Remember
Ananias and Sapphira, who, whatever their character, were
murdered for the good of the infant Church, as millions of
innocent people have been for the same institution and prin
ciples in later centuries.
Printed and PublisE& by jfctasey-and Foote, at 2S Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�No. 6.] BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
[11.
BT
JOSEPH
SYMES.
JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
'^v.1
And Jacob said unto his father, I am Esau thy first-born
(Genesis xxvii., 19).—Ananias and his wife were struck dead
for lying; Jacob was protected and favored by the Lord im
mediately after this atrocious lie. As Jacob bamboozled his
earthly father, so most Christians to-day treat their father
who is in heaven. He is too blind to detect the fraud, or he
would soon make short work of the bishops, who rob the poor
Esaus of their birthright. Every priesthood lives by imitating Jacob. That is why the patriarch is so popular with them.
And he dreamed, and behold a ladder set up on the earth,
and the top of it reached to heaven: and behold the angels of
God ascending and descending on it (Genesis xxviii., 12).—This
must have been a divine dream, or it would not have been
recorded. A ladder reaching to heaven ! How preposterous 1
Angels running up and down! This was probably before
they were fledged, or, as someone has suggested, it may have
been at the season when they were moulting, their wings then
being too tattered for a lengthy flight.
And Jacob awaked out of his sleep, and he said, Surely the
Lord is in this place ; and I knew it not (Genesis xxviii., 16).
—The saint did not know that his God was where he slept!
He had evidently not said his prayers before going to sleep.
He had left home without taking his God with him, and was
startled to find him going on the same journey. And he was
afraid, and said, How dreadful is this place! this is none other
but the house of God, and this is the gate of heaven (verse 17).
Ay ! ay ! it is always so. There is no place, except one, that
saints find so dreadful as the gate of heaven, and that is the
gate of its antipodes. If a saint ever needs comfort it is when
in sight of the heavenly city. Then he sends for the doctor
�82
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
—or two or three doctors, if he is rich enough—to kill the
messenger, the disease, God has sent to call him home. If
the doctors succeed, there is rejoicing; if they fail, the poor
saint shuffles off his mortal coil as reluctantly as he would
strip off his clothes in the Arctic regions; and he enters
heaven (that is, exits from life) with a face as long as he
would wear were he going to prison or the workhouse ! Ah!
yes—the gate of heaven is a dreadful spot, and I should not
be surprised to find it worse inside than out.
And he took the stone that he had put for the pillows, and set
it up for a pillar, and poured oil upon the top of it (verse 18).—
Here we land in absolute and widespread idolatry. Jacob
was a phallic worshipper, and he consecrated this stone in
the usual manner, his God, of course, being quite delighted
with the act. He anointed it, and so made a Christ of it,
that is, an anointed, greased, or smeared one.
And Jacob vowed a vow, saying, If God will be with me, and
will keep (that is, protect) me in this way that I go, and will
give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, so that I come again
to my father s house in peace ; then shall the Lord be my God:
and this stone, ivhich I have set for a pillar, shall be God's
house ; and of all that thou shalt give me I will surely give the
tenth unto thee (verses 20-22),—This text is full of the mar
row of divinity. 1. Jacob enters into a bargain with God
and puts him to the test. He will have nothing to do with a
God that will do nothing for him. In that he was right.
Neither will I. 2. The vow shows that Jacob had not yet
received Jehovah into his pantheon, and was resolved to
experiment upon him before he did. Eight again. 3. If the
God did his duty, he should have that stone for his house 1
Very kind of Jacob; and the God did not object. Perhaps
the stone had a hole in it. 4. He will pay God ten per cent,
of all that God gives him ! That must have been very tempt
ing to Jehovah; and we must suppose he at once fell in with
the proposal and accepted the bargain.
Note.—We are often told of the disinterested love of God
and his saints. But the article cannot be found in anything
except words. The Bible exhibits no love but what expects
a reward.
We shall see in the sequel that, whatever the Lord did,
Jacob never performed his part of this vow. It was the off
spring of panic, as most vows are, never meant to be kept, but
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
83
only to appease the present wrath of the deity and ward off a
supposed or real danger. Religion, when dissected, is found
to be selfishness consecrated.
The story of Jacob and his married life had better be left
where it is—in the Bible, one of the few places really fit for
it. Comment is both unnecessary and impossible.
The way in which Jacob contrived to grow rich at Laban’s
expense was clever, ay, miraculous—which shows that God
was with the rogue all the way through. Honest men never
get nor need his assistance. To judge from what the Bible
teaches, especially in connexion with Jacob, Moses, Joshua
and Elijah, Jehovah was the patron God of cut-throats,
swindlers and thieves.
And Jacob stole away unawares to Laban the Syrian
(Genesis xxxi., 20).—Exactly so. Moses did the same from
Egypt; and delivered the Israelites from slavery under pre
tence of going out for a holiday—that is, to worship. But
God was with them.
Jaco& was Ze/ii a/one; and there wrestled a man with
him until the breaking of the day (Genesis xxxii., 24).—The
context shows that the man was a god, whom Jacob saw
“face to face.” The struggle between the almighty and his
servant Jacob, at that time nearly one hundred years old,
if Bible chronology can be trusted, was a very severe and
protracted one ; and for a long period it was doubtful which
would win. If I knew the language of the ring I would
describe the scene; but I fear me that would prove as great
a task for me as God found it to defend himself against Jacob.
After several throws on each side—angels, no doubt, being
seconds and bottle-holders—God gave in and acknowledged
that Jacob was too many for him. He thereupon surrendered
the belt, and begged Jacob to permit him to retire. When
he got back to heaven, I have been told, nobody knew him.
His wig, like John Gilpin’s, was “upon the road,” and his
person was all bespattered and covered with dust and per
spiration. However, a hot bath and a week s rest put him
all right again. It may be remarked that Jehovah rested
only one day after the week he spent in creating all things.
If I am rightly informed, he needed seven times the repose
after this wrestling bout. True, he was 2,000 years older
at the time he entered the ring with Jacob, though even then
he had not reached the years of discretion.
t
�84
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Genesis xxxiv. must be passed over with the remark that
Jacob’s sons were chips of the old block in cunning, as may
be seen in their murders and plunder of Hamor and his son.
Jacob chid them, it is true, but only because he feared the
revenge of his neighbors. Saints usually love the Lord their
God, alias themselves, with all their heart, and so have no
love left for other people.
And Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem
(Genesis xxxv., 4).—Jacob had been in Canaan now for a long
period, and yet had not paid his vow to God; and the latter
reminded him that the debt was still standing, and ordered him
to the place where he had seen the ladder reaching up into
heaven. Though Jacob had conquered Jehovah in the ring,
he still deemed it best to be on good terms with him. So he
packed up to go to Bethel to worship, and he told his house
hold to put away the other gods they had. Those were handed
over to Jacob, and he merely buried them along with certain
jewels and trinkets under the tree. This was merely a com
promise ; the other gods were merely put out of the way
while Jehovah was being attended to—just as people to-day
go to churches and chapels, where they pretend to worship
God; though they are merely enduring the “ service ” until
they can rush back again to the pleasures and riches they
left behind them.
Jacob built his altar to God and offered sacrifice ; but he
did not give the tenth of all he had, as he had promised when
he had nothing at all to give. Of course not. Whoever
thinks of keeping his word with Jehovah ? With whom does
Jehovah keep his pledges ?
And these are the kings that reigned in the land of Edom,
before there reigned any king over the children of Israel
(Genesis xxxvi. 31 .—This is genuine revelation, and shows
us that Moses did not write Genesis. It must have been
written after Saul and David, for kings of Israel are mentioned
as having reigned at the time the writer lived. We know
not who did write Genesis. We know Moses did not; unless
his book has been largely interpolated and < orrupted. Though
it matters not the least who wrote it; one man is as likely to
be inspired as any other.
How Israel loved Joseph more than all his children (Genesis
xxxvii., 3).—Gods and saints usually have favorites; and
nothing better exhibits their weakness. Jacob loved Joseph,
�JUMPING COMMENTS ON GENESIS.
85
made a regular guy of him with a harlequin’s coat; he became
a spy upon his brothers, and reported what he saw to his
father. His brothers hated him, and sold him ; and that was
as good as he deserved. Joseph in Egypt turned out a full
blown professor of dreams, as his brothers had sneeringly
called him (xxxvii., 19) ; married the daughter of a priest of
On, or Heliopolis, a heathen; became grand vizier of Pharaoh
(a purely fabulous title, by the way), gathered up the corn
during the years of plenty, sold it out during the famine for
the people’s money, cattle, land, and themselves, thus making
all the people absolute slaves to the king. No doubt the
writer thought he was sketching a splendid and saintly
character; in truth he has presented us with one of the very
worst tools of despotism. He never interfered with the lands
of the priesthood (a priest wrote the story); their organisation
was too prwerful, and Joseph was too closely allied to that
guild to interfere with their possessions.
And Joseph fell upon his father s face, and wept upon him,
and kissed him (Genesis 1., 1).—Joseph was very affectionate.
For many years he enjoyed himself in Egypt without ever
inquiring for his friends, and would probably never have
sought them again if the famine had not thrown them in his
way; yet he makes an awful fuss now when he finds them
and afterwards when his father was dead !
My jumping, capering comments have now run quite through
the book of Genesis. I may just remark that many people
will regard my comments as altogether inadequate, and even
positively faulty in all respects. Well! I have written as I
thought best under the circumstances, and for the end I had
in view; as I have consulted my own whims and fancies in
writing, I should be sorry not to allow the reader the same
liberty.
My comments, faulty as they may be, are quite worthy
of the Bible, regarded as a divine revelation; considered
as an antiquity, no comment can be too good for it. My
object is not to damage the Bible, but to render it impossible
for men to damage themselves by worshipping it or its wornout God. Still I must say, my comment is more honest and
straightforward than any orthodox one ever written upon the
Bible; for I have not perverted a single text to support fore
gone conclusions; while orthodox commentaries consist of
little else than perversions of that nature.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
The following true and faithful history of Jesus has just been
handed to me by the Holy Ghost for publication. This is
true, as true as the Bible. If any wicked sceptic disbelieves
it, I will not send him to hell—I would scorn to do such a
mean trick—but I will prove by a miracle that “ my record
is true.” I will even do this—Let a bishop or Tyler drink
enough strychnine to kill him; and when he is dead, I will
restore him to life. If Christians will not submit to so simple
and safe a test, let them doubt as they will; I will not waste
time in arguing with such idiotic people. The story I have
to relate is so evidently penned by the Holy Ghost—its morals
are so pure, its tone so serious and grand, its revelations so
far beyond the reach of mere reason, so immensely transcending
all that science or even romance ever wrote—that any person
with the least pretence to spiritual insight must at once
acknowledge that it could not have been written by a mere
man. Therefore, let all who value their credit for intelligence,
and who do not wish to be regarded as lunatics, acknowledge
at once that the following history is of divine inspiration.
The Holy Ghost told me, as he handed over the manuscript,
that he supposed few would believe it. He had never been
very successful since intelligence and science got abroad; but
still he thought it his duty to do what he could. “ At all
events,” said he, “ publish it. I give you carte, blanche as to
what you shall give to the world and what omit. You under
stand the ways of the world better than I, and I am bound to
say I am delighted to have secured you as my editor and
literary executor. This is my last work ; and I wish you to
render it as attractive as you can. A little embellishment, I
presume, will not be amiss ; and, of course, you are at liberty
to expand the miracles a little if you do not think them
striking enough for popular taste. I am told that sensation
is now the order of the day, especially with the churches ; so
do not be over-scrupulous.”
I promised to do my best, and the Holy Ghost left. All .
this, reader, is teue !—as true, I am bound to say, as that
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
87 ,
Moses saw the western side of God; as true as that the walls
of Jericho fell at the blast of rains’ horns ; as true as that
Jesus came down from heaven ; as true as that Paul was
caught up to the third heaven ; as true as that Tyler is honest
or sensible. And thou knowest, thou sceptical reader, thou!
that nothing can be truer than these.
If the wicked infidel wants further proof still that this
gospel is true, be it known unto him that I once went up to
the sixty-fifth heaven, and saw Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob
there, carrying on their old tricks as upon earth. There I
saw the beasts full of eyes before and behind; and one of
them calved while I was there. In fact, there is a whole
menagerie of curious beasts there now; and they are getting
so numerous that they wished me to buy up a number for
exportation. But it was not in my line. I was told that
they made Jacob the head overseer of all the animals, with
all the young beasts of a certain color that might be born as
his wages. Jacob, true to his character, increased his own
share artificially as he did when under Laban (Gen. xxx., 37).
When caught he denied it, but truthful Peter gave evidence
against him ; and “immediately the cock crew.” Then they
sent Jacob for twenty years to hell; but the Lord was with
him.
Thou foolish sceptic, dost thou now believe ? If thou,
believest not me who have been to the sixty-fifth heaven,
how canst thou believe Paul, who rose no higher than the
third ? Wilt thou compel me to boast yet further ? Be it
so. I will conquer thy unbelief. Once on a time, about
three thousand years before I was born (John viii., 58), I was
on tramp ; and coming to a mountain that stood in my way
I bade it be gone, and it skipped away like a sky-rocket, and
I saw it no more. Where the mountain stood there remained
a hole of immense size. Into that hole ran the river Jordan;
and that hole is the Dead Sea ! Dost thou now believe that
I am inspired by the Holy Ghost ? If not, I leave thee to
thy hardness of heart. Go thy way. Read this new gospel.
And may it open thine eyes! Amen.
The Gospel.
Now the birth of Jesus was on this wise : His mother Mary
had been a nun, and her cousin Elizabeth had been one also.
Now Elizabeth was gay, and her husband Zacharias was old
and well-stricken in years. And, behold, an angel of the
,
,
.
.
�88
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
Lord, about twenty-five, who served the Lord day and night
as a monk in a convent near her dwelling, came unto her by
night, and prophesied that she should have a son.
*
And in
process of time his prophecy was fulfilled.
Now it came to pass that for many days the husband of
Elizabeth, even the aged Zacharias, who was not ignorant of
the ways of the Lord’s angels, was dumb, and spake not unto
his wife either good or bad, for he perceived that she was
too subtil for him. Nor yet did he open his mouth when her
cousin Mary came to commune with her.
Now Mary, being young and well-favored, was betrothed
unto a man named Joseph, by trade a carpenter. And lo, he
was good-natured and gentle, one that feared God and his
espoused wife, believing all things, hoping all things. But
when he perceived that Mary was as became her not, he was
perplexed. Although he was aware that Gabriel, another
angel of the Lord, who was also a monk, had visited her,
saying,
All hail, beau ideal of women! The Lord hath
chosen thee to be his friend1” Mary not comprehending the
salutation, the angel explained, and went his way.
Now it came to pass as Joseph was sore perplexed and in
desperation, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to him by
night and pleasantly greeted him, and bade him be of good
cheer f .... And the angel said, moreover, forasmuch as
thou art poor, behold, the Lord hath sent thee one hundred
pieces of silver to cheer thy heart withal. And Joseph was
content, and took his espoused wife unto himself.
Now when Jesus was born, there came twenty-five venerable
handmaidens of the Lord to commune with the young child
and his mother, for he was filled with marvellous wisdom
even before he was born, and could even speak “ as never
man spake ” before he could suck ; that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet—“ Out of the mouth of
babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise.” Now the
first words that Jesus uttered were these : “ Bring hither
those mine enemies, and slay them before me !” And Joseph,
being astonished at the miracle, even took his axe, and slew
fifty thousand and three-score and ten of the old women, as
* Using my discretion, I omit a few sentences here from the Holy
Ghost’s narrative, which are scarcely fit for ears polite.
f Here again I am compelled to omit a few sentences from the
Holy Ghost’s narrative.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
89
it is written in the book of Samuel the prophet concering the
men of Beth-shemesh.
*
And all that heard thereof were
amazed, and gave glory to God in the highest, and on earth
peace and good will towards men. But when the king heard
thereof he was wrath, and sought to kill Joseph and Mary
and the young child. But Gabriel came to Joseph by night,
saying, “ Up ! Why tarriest thou ? Take the baby and his
mother, and get thee into the land of Egypt, and dwell there
till I send thee word; for the king seeks the young child’s
life.”
Then Joseph arose and took the young child and Mary his
mother, and fled to the land of Egypt; and there they
remained until the death of the king, which was accelerated
by Gabriel, who was even the king’s confessor ; and he gave
unto him the sacrament, and the king was sick, and lay down
upon his bed, and gave up the ghost.
Then did Gabriel send to Joseph, saying, “Up, return to
thine own land, and bring the young child and his mother
with thee, for thine enemy is dead. Blessed be the name of
the Lord.”
But, behold, or ever the message came Joseph was ready,
knowing that the king was dead. For it came to pass that
as the king gave up the ghost, even in that self-same moment,
Jesus rose in his cradle and cried, “Return to thy own land,
for thine enemy is dead!” And immediately he turned his
■cradle into an ass, ready saddled for the journey ! And all
that heard it did marvel beyond measure, saying, “ Why
should a child of so great power and wisdom flee .from his
enemies ?” But all this was done that it might be fulfilled
which was spoken by the prophet, saying, “ Behold, I will
confound the wisdom of the wise ; and fools and folly shall
be exalted !”
And when Jesus was about fifteen months old he went into
the temple, even into the place where the scribes and elders
and bishops and all the Levites were diligently reading the
word of the Lord, and religiously quarrelling about the
meaning and interpretation thereof. And one said on this
wise, and another on that; and there was no wisdom nor
agreement amongst them, for the Lord had confounded them
giving a revelation which no man in heaven or earth could
* 1 Samuel vi., 19.
�90
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
understand. And behold, they did chide, and foam at the
mouth, and gnash with their teeth, and curse every man. his
fellow because of the multitude of opinions that prevailed.
Then Jesus stood in the midst of them and asked them ques
tions, and gave them answers which astounded all those that
heard him. And his fame spread abroad throughout, the
whole region and to every nation which is under heaven, inso
much that the newspapers reported nothing else but the
sayings of Jesus for weeks thereafter.
Then did Mary and her husband suddenly rush into the
temple, and when they found the child they took him away
to their home ; and Mary said, “ Why hast thou done thus
unto us ?” Then answered Jesus and said unto her, “Woman,
what have I to do with thee ? I’ll tell the old man of
Gabriel’s visits, if you don’t mind.” And Mary kept that
saying, and treasured it up in her heart.
After these things Jesus went out to the river Jordan,
wh ere his cousin John was conducting Salvation Army work
and dipping the people into the river to wash away their sins.
And Jesus, feeling his need of cleansing, prevailed upon John
to dip him. He stayed in the water too long, and caught a
violent chill. This brought on a fever and delirium, during
which he raved about a spirit (t was not I, certainly) driving
i
*
him into the wilderness to be tempted by the Devil.
And, behold, Jesus, as he lay in his fever, . did rave
exceedingly, and said that the Devil had come to him in the
wilderness, where he had fasted forty days and forty nights,
and was very hungry. The Devil brought unto him a. pig and
tempted him to eat it; but he repelled the temptation, with
horror. Then the Devil caught him up and flew with him to
a battlement of the temple and hurled him over ; but an
angel caught him before he fell to the earth. Then the Devil
took him away to a mountain exceedingly high, and showed
him all the cities and kingdoms of the world, even in both
hemispheres at one view ; and promised to make him the ruler
of them all, if he would only worship him. This he refused
to do. And the Devil left him there upon the mountain, cold .
and hungry, and not knowing which way to turn to
road home. Then an army of angels, as soon as the Devil
was out of sight, and they were no longer afraid of him, took
* Parenthesis by the Holy Ghost.
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
91
Jesus up and bore him home to his bed in a moment of time.
And behold, he awoke and told his vision to his Mother Mary ;
and she perceived thereby that hei’ son would be great, and
that divine wisdom dwelt in him more than in all the prophets
that were before him.
And Jesus, when the fever had left him chose twelve
disciples, and their names were these : Simon alias Peter;
Andrew (Peter’s brother); James and John Zebedee (also
brothers) ; Philip ; Bartholomew ; Thomas alias Didymus ;
Matthew alias Levi; James Alphseus; Lebbaeus alias
Thaddaeus ; Simon the Canaanite ; and Judas Iscariot. These
he sent out to preach his Gospel. They were bidden not to
meddle with Gentiles, but only Jews; and to cry as they
went, “ The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” They were
commanded to heal the sick and to cast out devils : for
Jesus would never forgive the king of the devils for tempting
him to eat pork. Therefore, would he have wai’ with him
and his angels for ever. And he commanded them, moreover,
to raise the dead to life. They were forbidden to take any
gold, silver, or brass with them he commanded them not to
have two coats ; and to wear sandals instead of shoes.
Then the disciples went everywhere shouting their cry
“The kingdom of heaven is at hand 1” and healing the sick
and raising the dead in multitudes ; insomuch that the doctors
and undertakers and the parsons were deprived of their occu
pation and their burial fees ; and they cried out against the
disciples with an exceeding bitter cry. And all as many as held
property under their fathers’ wills, when they found their
parents and ancestors rising up to life again, did gnash their
teeth with rage against the disciples of Jesus. And it came
to pass that all the devils whom they had cast out did unite
with the physicians, and the undertakers, and those whom
their fathers had disturbed and dispossessed, and the parsons
who had lost their fees : and they set upon the disciples, and
drove them out of their cities. And all men wondered at that
which they beheld, and said, “ Why could not those men who
raised the dead defend themselves against the living?”
After these things Jesus and his disciples and his mother
went to a wedding, so that the wine ran short. But Jesus
turned a large cistern full of water into prime old port; and
then “ the fun grew fast and furious
and many good toasts
were drunk and good songs were sung. And they all sang a
�92
BLOWS AT THB BIBLE.
new song, even the song of Moses and of the lamb, in honor
of Jesus, saying,
“For he’s a jolly good fellow!
For he’s a jolly good fellow!
For he’s a jolly good fellow !
Which nobody can deny,” etc.
And passing on from thence Jesus met one thousand old
women, very decrepid, withered and toothless. And when
they asked alms of him, he said, “ What will ye that I should
do unto you ?” And they say unto him, “ Lord, that we may
be restored to our youth and beauty.” And he healed them
all, insomuch that they became the most beautiful women
upon earth. Some of them remain even unto this day “ to
witness if I lie.” And when this was noised abroad, behold,
all that had old and decrepid wives and sisters besought him
to heal them also. But he passed by and hid himself in a
desert place.
And his disciples went into a ship to cross over the sea;
and lo, a great wind arose, and the ship was in danger of
being overwhelmed in the midst of the sea. And the disciples,
as becometh good Christians, were sore afraid, saying, “ Alas!
must we enter into the New Jerusalem before our time ?”
And Jesus breathed upon the sea and it dried up; and he
turned the ship into a chariot, and six sharks into horses, and
thus rode, he and his disciples to their own home. And all
men, as many as heard it, did marvel greatly at those things
that were done.
And going on from thence he met a man who had fifty
million devils in him. And he cast them all out, and the
man was empty. < And the devils he sent into a herd of swine ;
and behold, the pigs began to fly like eagles, until they were
over the sea. And then did they all tumble into the water,
and were drowned, they and the devils also. And when the
owners of the pigs heard thereof, they ran out, they and their
neighbors, and chased Jesus out of that region.
And when he came to a fig-tree, he went to see if there
were any figs thereupon ; for he was very hungry, But the
•season for figs was not yet come, and he found nothing on it
but leaves. Then he began to curse and to swear, and the fig
tree turned as pale as death with fright, and entreated Jesus
not to curse it so, fori was unreasonable to expect figs out
�THE GOSPEL OF THE HOLY GHOST.
93
of season. But Jesus gave no heed to its entreaty, but he
answered and said, ‘ ‘ Because thou hast not borne figs to feed
me when I am in need, henceforth let no figs grow on thee
for ever! Selah!” And it came to pass that the fig-tree,
being condemned in his own conscience, suddenly fell down
and gave up the ghost, and became a pillar of salt, as it is
written in the book of Moses concerning Lot’s wife. And
behold the man whose fig-tree it was did weep and lament
exceeding sore, both he and his -wife and family, for that which
had befallen their tree.
And going on from thence, there encountered them certain
of the Pharisees and Sadducees. And it came to pass that as
they chid him and mocked him, behold he performed a
miracle and turned them all into cabbages; and when the
sun shone hot upon them, having no root, they withered away.
And all men wondered at that which had come to pass.
Then began Jesus to say unto his disciples and to the
multitude, “Behold, I came down from heaven.” And they
said unto him, “' When didst thou descend from heaven ? Lo,
wast thou not born in Bethlehem ? Didst thou come from
heaven before thou wast born ? Or hast thou been up to
heaven and returned therefrom ? Tell us, we pray thee, what
explanation thou canst give.” And Jesus was wrath, and
3aid, “ He that believeth not shall be damned. It shall be
worse for you that doubt my words than for Sodom and
Gomorrah.” And he shook off the dust of his feet against
them, and went his way.
And in those days when work was disagreeable and alms
were hard to get, Jesus and his disciples went a-fishing ; but
Jesus himself remained upon the shore. And, behold., as they
rowed and toiled the fish would not enter into their net, and
the disciples knew not what to do, being sore perplexed. Then
Jesus, who was skilled in magic, waved his hands over the sea,
and the spirit of God descended upon the fishes like a mighty
rushing wind ; and the disciples caught three thousand of
them in the twinkling of an eye. And when they drew the
net to land the fishes fell down before him and worshipped
him, saying, “Verily, thou art the Son of God.”*
Then Jesus began to say unto the twelve, “Whosoever he
* One version reads, “ Verily, thou art a son of a gun.” But this is
most probably spurious; for guns were unknown in those ctays.
�96
BLOWS AT THE BIBLE.
third part of the sea became bloodand a third of all fishes
and ships were destroyed. Then he smote the sun, moon,
and stars, and darkened one third of them. And he opened
the door of the bottomless pit, and let out the fiery locusts
which were shut up there; and they destroyed one-third of
mankind.
Then he mounted a white horse which came from heaven,
and called himself King of. Kings and Lord of Lords; and he
led his armies to war, all riding upon white horses, and there
was an exceedingly great slaughter, so that the blood rose even
unto the horse-bridles for the space of 200 miles ! Then did
he invite the beasts and birds of prey to come and feast them
selves upon the flesh of the millions who had fallen in battle,
for he refused them decent burial because of his hatred of
them.
It came to pass after these things that Judas, one of his
disciples, betrayed him into the hands of his enemies. He
did it on this wise. Finding his master asleep, he took awav
his magic wand, and cut off his hair, wherein resided his
great power. .Then he became powerless and like another
man. Then did Judas conduct his enemies to him, and they
caught him and bound him, and led him away captive, and
they carried him to Egypt and there crucified him (Rev. xi., 8).
Then one of his followers, Mary by name, whose character
was not the best, and out of whom Jesus had cast seven
devils, pretended to have seen him after his death. But even
his disciples treated the tale as a ghost story. They, howe\ er, believed that, like Hercules and Adonis and Osiris, he
had been raised to heaven ; and some there are who believe
it even unto this day.
He that testifieth these things saith true. And if he had
written all that Jesus said and did. the world itself would be
too small to hold the books that would be written. He that
BELIEVETH SHALL BE TAKEN INTO
THE
HEAVENLY
ASYLUM,
New Jerusalem ; he that believeth not shall be
condemned to wander with the wise ones of the earth, and be
at large and at liberty all the days of his life. Amen!
even the
Printed and Published by Ramsey and Foote, at 28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Blows at the Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 6 v. (96 p.) ; 19 cm.
Notes: Contents: No. 1: The sermon on the mount.--No. 2: The life of Adam. Love not the world. The mystery of salvation.--No. 3: How a fairy was transformed. Jumping comments on Genesis.-- Nos. 4, 5: Jumping comments on Genesis.--No. 6: Jumping comments on Genesis. The gospel of the Holy Ghost. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Ramsey and Foote]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[n.d.]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N628
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Blows at the Bible), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Authority
Bible-Criticism
Bible-Evidences
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bd735bbb8e7a1674442ff112ede8075f.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KqCN6mbYEUJWCDcAc%7ELK54cRVh9xQrh4q8A%7EzsXy1ky%7E35zFoX72u0ftYfZtWJQtGsCfERKi0xY1lu28l1c3%7EMh7TEaTMDBsig8sCXWk47WIAadCBteCbSejvh8WRtZyY6hMw5V9VM7Y9DUVbVL1BjJqw-lSXgI81U%7E5CCqJBQI-f9TdUH84K5trnx1AMoZ0q9sRGRa-qHvN8KGcawaPHF4WTrx9gF%7EYVdGDV7DI7WDhZL5J7lDJrrJxPe4it7v4cjNsi3e4rsne06907L6UmzmWsQHBdNrF2j-dFl9gP2vaG62qerTxkCEYGldsfov3uBvBPsTyfiQC%7EMui0bm1tg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
c6cce66f90071c72114825bc72939015
PDF Text
Text
Hfk
ma
Kr"'
■
m
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
*
B
M
1
7, ■
THE
New Testament
Manuscripts,
OR,
I*
CHRISTIANITY COMPLETELY UNDERMINED.
SYMES.
By JOSEPH
WITH
1
FAC-SIMILES
MSS.
SECOND EDITION.
Price THREE
%
OF
PENCE.
London:
THE PIONEER PRESS, 2 NEWCASTLE STREET, E.C.
�EXPLANATION
OF THE
FAC-SIMILES.
The first is a specimen of the running hand, written on Egyptian papyrus
some time between b.c. too and too a.d. It is a fragment of Hyperides,
an orator of the time of Demosthenes, 4th century b.c.
The second is an extract from Philodemos, a philosopher and poet of
Cicero s day.
t^irdspecimen is from a manuscript of the Greek Old Testament
(Co«x Fredenco-Augustanus). It contains 2 Sam. vii. 10-11
fourth is a specimen of Codex Sinaiticus, the famous manuscript
which Tischendorf brought (the monks say, stole) from the convent of St.
Catherine, Mount Sinai, 1859. The part quoted is Luke xxiv. 33-34
The two lines on the right-hand side below, written up and down
deserve a moment’s notice. They also are from Codex Sinaiticus, and
are a portion of 1 Timothy 111. 16, a passage which has given the Christians
endless trouble and led to disputes which reason can never settle. The
text reads to tes eusebeias mysterion ; but whether the next word is hos or
theos is the point in dispute. It appears that most of the manuscripts
read theos, though several important ones have hos or ho. The difficulty
arises from the fact that the manuscript writers and copiers frequently
contracted or abbreviated words, as we do still. We write Mr. for mister
or master; Mrs. for mistress; Dr. for doctor, etc. And in the ancient
manuscripts OC stand for hos (who); and the same letters, with horizontal
lines across the O stand for theos (God). The puzzle then is to decide
whether 1 Tim. ni. 16 should be read who (or which) or God!—a very
serious puzzle indeed, and one it is now too late to clear up, without a
new revelation—which even the most pious do not expect.
As Dr. Scrivener says, “ This text has proved the crux 'criticorum,” the
despair of the critics, we may say. And it is plain the text in Codex
Sinaiticus has been tampered with or else corrected by the author. Let
the reader look at it—the second perpendicular line, right-hand side below.
Reading up the line, the last letters are OCE. (The C is pronounced S
by the way.) Partly over the O and partly over the preceding letter n’
you see a peculiar compound mark, which Tischendorf says was made by
some corrector in the 12th century. The mark is evidently
which
together with OC below, make theos or God.
The text commonly reads, great is the mystery of godliness; God was
manifested in the flesh. But this celebrated manuscript of Tischendorf’s
reads in the first hand, Graf is the mystery of godliness who was manifested
m the flesh.
J
There are hundreds of similar doubtful readings in the manuscripts •
and I have given this as a specimen that all can understand.
’
�A*?
WWW
XjtcdnMi
ACo
/AM fXUwMl^O O>l
K/J Xhjin£OAi Ker
*t
XCYCM
TOVtXWCrOYhJTKr^
o w •trcMC r* oktn»a 9 SCT>W0m
A rop€YO
s
* lOKO«G
M=
**
YAJrTANTA
ZuY^ACQAir-lMCUCKeJ^K^inoj
O
^
*
e VXOlOMGAXTO»M
OCGmioiC
OTA6'U T* 4 ‘CopAkmAl KATCXWn
»
K At O T CY w6pC M 07 TTO/»|XAA€j
>
*
1
*
TAJTPI &HCAMKAI ATTOTmCAY
rnCriNMTAi/'AfeOAo^ ftXOA,
n €PTATMCrrOtHTJI<HCA^€PM XOM1
^.toTtn^p rroycnoxxzAASCiC
CGKTTONI KA-©CD«h£
XH CKXIX<t>H M €j»C£>
CJOHCTXiAKfll>c ♦
€nnoNAAONM<7 |
ICXkai €TaFTimo> I
caxha^tacto7<
;
exofoyccOTKAi
KYT^CCDCC Kaioi
I
I
|h u> p a yn e ct*’’
YAW€ lCJ6fOyCA
AH M KAI CYf ON
1
*
0|»oicm€moyc-h*
eAIA6KAKAlTOp
C YH A yTO> CACr
***
�FRAGMENT OF GREEK NEW TESTAMENT MSS.
m>W &c Vh«
*J» »CA>tee«u
® S^d-w<5
r
*«£MAice
k
&&C”r&e<SAf®oc«$
rAf
**
t»@ e^ectb
O&i sHoN^eANSCSCO
®
*
^mswcmImtoic
<€$!d»crHm€UH^
<flO$lCTOKHNM7^H
S&l€3.MMdB H0HCAH
&&& A^rw » <YT^f CM
®
*
gltGAUgiieeGaferzHT
®
*
W ’SF’d H H A X Apw M $M$T
®>S 6v KWC T3 K8<fiA« o
*
B-r@r«ocorTOY®® K’e^
Ivt 6m JLaa
r
*$
<rc
r
*6iCM
?fr?^T€
O8nn?Q*t*5ii Yw>^c^^
THH FA A® AAJAH6 Ke\£QT
T&Htf’f ece«KA®u>e^
rJ®^M5«>il6SLGA^7
CAI € 4»Tro NSr>d’T©y
earing® «©x^8*€N rar
Jty TAC TTf»OM O C St A?f K
<
CTaC|C
^•rrf ’
ft e
X
**
The printed Greek
(in English letters)
runs thus :—min ton
lithon ek tes thuras
tou mnemeiou kai
anablepsasai theorousin hoti anakekulistai ho lithos en
gar megas sphodra
kai elthousai eis to
mnemeion eidon neaniskon kathemenon
en tois dexiois peribeblemenon stolen
leuken kai exethambethesan ho de legei
autais me ekthambeisthe iesoun zeteite ton nazarenon
ton estauromenon
ergerthe ouk estin
hode ide ho topos
hopou ethekan auton alia hupagete
eipate tois mathetais autou kai to
petro hoti proagei
humas eis ten galilaian ekei auton
opsesthe kathos eipen humin kai exelthousai ephugon
apo tou mnemeiou
eichen gar autas
tromos kai ekstasis
kai
oudeni ouden
eipon ephobounto
gar.
Kata Markon.
FAC-SIMILE OF CODEX VATICANUS, MARK Xvi. 3-8.
�PREFACE.
I must ask the reader to observe that the following notes upon the
New Testament Manuscripts are not intended to be a treatise or at
all exhaustive. The pamphlet is a reprint from several consecutive
numbers of the Liberator; and the notes were written as the printers
required copy. Hence there will be seen a want of consecutiveness
in them, which I hope may be forgiven.
I have written for the multitude, not for scholars ; although, I
respectfully submit, the best of Christian scholars would do well to
consider the points and issues I raise. Let them remember that
every item in the liberal thought of to-day was first supplied by
Freethinkers, and long afterwards adopted by the Christians when
they found their old notions, no longer tenable. So must it be in the
future. The views I here advance will be generally adopted in the
next generation.
I may here note a common argument of the Christians, though
not so confidently urged now as in former days :—
It is often said that we have better evidence for the Christian
scriptures than for the Classical works of Greece and Rome—that
is, that it is easier to prove, for example, that Matthew wrote the
gospel which goes in his name than to prove that any given Greek
or Roman author wrote a work circulating in his name. If that be
so, we are quite in the dark as to the origin of the Classical books,
for the most eager defender of the faith has never yet been able to
show when, or where, or by whom, any of the New Testament books
were written.
Further, I submit that, had there been various sects of Classicists,
all trying to exterminate the rest; and had one powerful sect gained
the upper-hand and destroyed its rivals and their books as well, and
libelled them into the bargain; and further, that if most of what we
hold to be Classical literature emerged from the care and keeping of
that conquering sect, we could have no confidence whatsoever in the
teachings of that sect as regards the authors, etc., of the books they
handed over to us. Add to this the supposition that the books
actually preserved, on the whole, strongly favored the pretensions of
the sect which preserved them, and you see how suspicious would
be their testimony.
Well, it is not the poor people, nor the masses of the people, to
whom we owe the preservation of the New Testament, but to
the most villainous set of men ever known, and men whose prime
tenets are supported by these very books.
When we further reflect upon the forgeries and lies the dominant
sects have always resorted to on occasion, we shall see that anything
�ii.
PREFACE.
coming from them must be regarded with the strongest suspicion?
until independent evidence can be obtained.
All things considered, the case of the Classical books, though by
no means satisfactory, is not a tenth as bad as the case of theNew Testament, which is vouched for mainly by those who
benefit by it.
Since I began my notes on the manuscripts, quite unexpectedly,
a friend has offered to produce a facsimile or two expressly for me
and through that gentleman’s kindness I am now able to publish, in
addition to the previous fragments, a facsimile, slightly reduced, of
a small portion of the Vatican manuscript or Codex Vaticanus, as
scholars are pleased to call it.
In the column beside it I have given the same words in the
ordinary New Testament Greek, but in English letters. It is not
necessary to insert the translation, as any one with an English New
Testament may read it for himself in Mark xvi. 3-8.
Please look over this facsimile and note a fact or two. 1. It is all.
in capital letters, or uncials, as scholars call them. 2. There are no
divisions between the words, and therefore the manuscript is difficult
to read, and in many cases quite uncertain. 3. In the 14th line
from the top there is a contraction, in, which is read “ iesoun ” or
Jesus (acc. case). But the word must be doubtful, in the nature of
the case. 4. There are little marks over many of the letters which
scholars say were inserted by some one long after the manuscript
was first written. That may be, but who can be sure ? 5. Below
are two words, “ Kata Markon,” said to be by a later scribe. Who'
knows ?
Note.—It is by such trifles scholars undertake to decide the dates
of manuscripts. The whole thing is doubtful in the extreme.
It may not be out of place to rehearse a few facts relating to the
Greek Testament, facts that should be persistently put before our
Christian neighbors and opponents. The clergy should be challenged
to say whether these statements are facts or fictions. And if I am
wrong in my statements, they should be urged to refute them.
It is no advantage to me to deny the truth or to preach and teach
error. If the New Testament is really an authentic history, it will
pay me well to say so. There are many thousands of people ardently
anxious that I should cease my opposition to their beliefs and begin,
again to preach the Gospel I have labored so long to discredit.
Therefore, it will be an immense advantage to me to be shown and
convinced that the New Testament is true history ; for, once satis
fied of that, I shall preach it most earnestly. And to do so would
bring me ^20, where I now get one. Therefore, if I oppose and
expose the New Testament and Christianity, it must be conceded
that some moral and legitimate motive impels me to do so.
On the other hand, if the clergy are not able to refute me, they
have no right to continue to preach and to live upon what they are
not able to prove to be true. If they can confute me, and will not,
they must be extremely immoral to permit me to propagate serious,
error and misrepresentations of the truth, which they can so easilyput a stop to.
�PREFAC®,
♦
iii.
To bring matters to an issue, I assert without fear of contradiction,
that the whole round of the gospel is an unfounded superstition ;
that the Gospels are frauds and forgeries; the New Testament a
‘book of most uncertain date ; and that, instead of having been
written by eye-witnesses of the things it relates, no proof exists that
the book is yet so much as 1,000 years old—-Though I do not deny
that it may be older.
I assert that the New Testament manuscripts now existing cannot
be traced back to any known author or writer or copier ; and that
•it is impossible to discover in what country any one of them was
produced. Nor is it possible to fix, within hundreds of years, the
date when any one of them was written.
Such is my challenge. And there is more to follow. Our common
New Testaments assert, on their title-page, that the English version
has been “ translated out of the original Greek.”
Now this was a known falsehood when first circulated. The
bishops and others of the English Church, in the reign of James I.,
were fully aware that the Greek they used did not pretend to be the
original; they were well aware that no one had ever pretended to
have seen the original—unless they meant to say that the printed
v text they had was the original, as they certainly did not. Those
Scholars knew that Erasmus, the Catholic critics, Stephens, and the
rest, who had for many years been examining manuscripts, had none
of them ever hinted or whispered that they had found the original.
Therefore, when those bishops authorised the printer to print
translated out of the original Greek,” they perpetrated a most
deliberate fib, and a fib that has imposed upon countless millions of
confiding people.
There was no excuse for this falsehood of theirs, except such an
excuse as vanity, ambition, or deliberate imposture could supply.
And whatever excuse might be urged for bishops and others of
nearly 300 years ago, there can be no shadow of excuse for those
who continue to reprint and circulate this fib. Since those ancient
bishops died, and most especially during the last sixty years, every
known corner has been ransacked for New Testament manuscripts ;
the most strenuous efforts have been made by Christian critics,
armed with all the weapons learning could give, to connect the New
Testament with the alleged apostles, and with Jesus. All such
efforts have hopelessly failed. No record, no scrap, of the originals
can be found ; no materials can be discovered out of which to con
struct a historical bridge to connect the oldest known manuscript
with the apostles or with Jesus.
Even if I admitted that Jesus and his apostles may have been
real persons and not fictions, still from the time of their death down
to the oldest fragment of real Church history, and down to the oldest
New Testament manuscript yet found, there must be reckoned
hundreds of years. Although the popular defender of the faith tries
to brazen it out and talks confidently, scholars know, and some of
them admit all that I contend for—in effect, if not in the language
I employ. I must quote a few passages from well known Christian
•works.
�iv.
PREFACE.
Smith's Bible Dictionary, 1863, article “New Testament” (by
Westcott the late Bishop of Durham), says, “ It does not appear
that any special care was taken in the first age to preserve the books
of the New Testament from the various injuries of time, or to insure
perfect accuracy of transcription. They were given as a heritage
to man, and it was some time before men felt the full value of the
gift. The original copies seem to have soon perished; and we may
perhaps see in this a providential provision against the spirit of
superstition which in earlier times converted the symbols of God’s
redemption into objects of idolatory (2 Kings xviii. 4). It is certainly
remarkable that in the controversies at the close of the second
century, which often turned upon disputed readings of scripture, no
appeal was made to the apostolic originals. The few passages in
which it has been supposed that they are referred to will not bear
examination.”
The writer then proceeds to dispose of certain imaginary references
to the originals in Ignatius and Tertullian.
He proceeds, “No Manuscript of the New Testament of the first
three centuries remains.” He drops the innocent remark that,
“ As soon as definite controversies arose among Christians, the text
of the New Testament assumed its true importance.” Westcott
notes the fact that the early Christians mutually accused each other
of corrupting their sacred books. The last note I need quote -from
him just at present is this, “ History affords no trace of the pure apostolic
originals."
Here, then, I have quoted from this Christian divine all that is
needed to justify the strong language I have used above. Of
course, the reader will perceive that Westcott, having, a
shockingly bad case, makes the best he is able of it. He raises
a pious dust, talks of providence, idolatry, etc. Still the truth
appears quite plainly through the mist; and the truth may thus
be summed up :—
1. Had the New Testament been an inspired book or a correct
record of the life of Christ and his apostles, there never could have
been a time when Christians could have valued them at less than
their real worth. Those who wrote the books would surely not be
blind to their value 1 They could not have been careless as to whom
they confided the books.
2. Those who received them from the authors must have valued
them as the most precious heritage of the Church, as Westcott fully
admits in hinting that people might have worshipped the originals
if God had not providentially destroyed what he had taken such pains
to inspire !—a wonderfully comical way of accounting for the loss
or early destruction of the originals, surely !
3. But Westcott was too wide awake not to understand why no
books have descended to us from the apostles, etc.—they never wrote
any, that is the truth. If they had done so, there would have been
no lack of evidence for it. It is not in the power of the .most cun
ning defender of the faith to assign or to.suggest a plausible reason
why the apostolic originals are not now in existence, supposing the
apostles really wrote and published anything.
�PREFACE.
V.
4. The fact that controversies arose so early and that they were
neither prevented nor settled by appeals to the apostolic originals is
clear proof that such originals never existed. How could controversies
arise amongst people who had the New Testament, as they supposed,
as an infallible guide ? And, granting the controversies, it is incon
ceivable that the disputants should have failed to appeal to an
apostolic standard, if such had really existed.
All these admissions of Westcott are plain proof that the New
Testament did not exist at the close of the 2nd century, when
those controversies raged. That being so, the New Testament must
be set down as a forgery of later times; but how much later cannot
as yet be ascertained. As Westcott says, the text assumed its true
importance in times of controversy ! Just so. All the round of
•dogmatic theology arose and was produced in times of controversy.
And it is plain that the New Testament was forged by the squabbling
Christians for the purpose of defending themselves and demolishing
their opponents. Yes, and the book itself is plentifully sprinkled
Over with the evidences of that.
�THE NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
It seems to me that Christian writers upon this subject make,
admissions or statements, which, properly considered, are quite fatah
to all historical claims of or for the New Testament. I have quoted
a specimen or two from Bishop Westcott, and here are others.
Dr. Newth, one of the authors af the Revised Version, says, in
Lectures on Revision, 1881, “ It is scarcely needed to state that we do
not now possess the original copies of any of the books of the Old
or the New Testament. Even while these (that is, the originals)
were still in existence it was necessary to transcribe them in order
that many persons in many places might possess and read them.”
I note here, ist.—That the statement that we do not possess the
originals of any portions of the Bible is strictly and absolutely true.
But, 2nd.—The assumption that the originals were copied and copied
in order to give many person^ the opportunity to read them is a
mere assumption with not one known fact to support it. If Dr..
Newth could prove the originals to have been copied, as he says they
were, he would more than half prove the New Testament historical
but the originals, as I shall show later, are nowhere mentioned by
any ancient writer. If many persons wanted copies to read, popular
education must have been early prevalent; but by common consent,,
the early Christians were not only of the poorer classes, for the
greater part, but also quite illiterate.
The doctor proceeds to show how almost impossible it was to
produce correct copies of the Bible. “ In the work of transcription,
however careful the transcriber might have been, errors of various kinds
necessarily arose ; some from mistaking one letter for another ; some
from failure of memory, if the scribe were writing from dictation ;
and some from occasional oversight, if he were writing from a copy
before him ; some from momentary lapses of attention, when his
hand wrote on without his guidance ; and some from an attempt tocorrect a real or fancied error of his predecessor ” (p. 3).
I ask, What could the Holy Ghost be thinking about to give man
kind a revelation in so uncertain and unreliable a manner ! This
point must be pushed. Nothing could be more blundersome or
more provocative of blunders than the course taken ; and the Holy
Ghost, if he inspired the Bible, must be held responsible for all the
errors of all its copies. He committed the first and fatal blunder of
trying to do what was impossible to be done by the means he
employed.
Dr. Newth says (p. 4) that the more recent the manuscripts are,
the greater is the agreement amongst them! That is as good as to
say, The more ancient your manuscripts are, the more do they
s
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
II
disagree amongst themselves! Well, critics tell you their oldest
existing New Testament manuscripts date from the 4th century.
If, then, the oldest disagree more and more in proportion to their
age, if we had the 3rd century manuscripts, we should find they
'differed Still more than the oldest we have ; if the 2nd century ones
could be recovered, we should find them worse still! and the 1st
-century ones, the worst of all! !
In other words, the nearer you approach the fountain head of
•Christianity, the more impure do you find the waters ! That being
so, of what conceivable value are the most ancient manuscripts ?
Nay, of what value are any of them ? These are questions no
scholar can answer in any satisfactory manner. Confusion of con
fusion, all is confusion and vexation of spirit; and the more the
subject is stirred, the more bewildered does the honest investigator
become. If it were the Koran that was concerned, instead of the
New Testament, how sarcastically and scornfully the Christian
Scholars would wax over such admissions and statements as I have
quoted above. How readily, in that case, would they perceive that
the evidences were totally unreliable and hardly worth refuting!
But reverence for their own fetish book has completely blinded
most of the Christian doctors, on the one hand, of the Mohammedan
doctors, on the other ; and none but Freethinkers can ever settle
the difficulties of either party.
Even the printing press, as Dr. Newth says, has by no means
abolished errors from the Bible. He supplies the following examples
of even printed errors in God’s most holy word, which the Holy
Ghost never took the trouble to correct, although the bishops and
clergy were as full of that ghost when those errors were committed
as at any time in the history of the Church.
In a Bible, called the “wicked Bible,” printed in 1631, Exodus
Xx. 14 reads, “ Thou shalt commit adultery.” In another, printed
1682, Deut. xxiv. 3 reads, “If the latter husband ate her,” instead
of “ hate her.” “ He slew two lions like men,” was printed for
“ two lion-like men ” (2 Sam. xxiii. 20), in a Bible dated 1638.
“ Deliver up their children to the swine ” (Jer. xviii. 21) for “ to the
famine,” appears in a Bible of 1682.
There are several others not worth quoting here. If such blunders
may occur in a printed book, what blunders may not have been
•committed in the ancient manuscripts ! Look at the facsimiles we
give, and note how easy it must have been, in copying hundreds of
pages of such manuscript, to fall into errors.
Dr. Newth says again, “ The exact words used by the inspired
writers are not now to be found in any one book or manuscript.
They have to be gathered from various sources, by long and careful
labor, demanding much skill and learning. These sources, more
over, are so numerous that the investigation of them can be
accomplished only by a large division of labor, no one life being
long enough for the task, and no one scholar having knowledge
-enough to complete it alone ” (p. 79).
There is a confession of the utter hopelessness of the task. Let
us note a point or two. 1. The common Bible will tell you, on its
�12
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
title-page, that it was “translated out of the original ” (Hebrew for
the Old Testament, Greek for the New). But, as New th and other
writers openly acknowledge, this is most untrue, for the manuscripts
used by the authors of our common Bible were recent ones and of
no authority whatsoever. The statement, then, that the books were
translated out of the original is as deliberate a lie as could be told.
2. Still, if no older or better manuscripts had been found, a few
days would have sufficed to compare the printed copies with the
manuscripts. Yes, and Christians would have gone on repeating
the lie about the translation from the original, and would, have
declared that the exact and identical word of God was found in our
common Bible.
3. But the whole question has been so closely studied since 1611,
when our common Bible was first published, that some of the fore
most scholars have set aside the text used then as of no value or
authority whatsoever ; and have tried to reconstruct the original
New Testament out of older and, as they say, more reliable
manuscripts.
4. But now another difficulty stares us in the face. Admitting
that the manuscripts used by the authors of the Revised Version of
1881 to be better than those used in 1611, other manuscripts may
soon be found better than any now known ; and then the work of
reconstructing God’s holy but most delapidated word must all be
done over again.
5. If no one manuscript contains the exact words of the original,
as Newth declares, do any twenty manuscripts ? or any hundred ?
or one thousand ? Do all the known manuscripts contain “ the
exact words,” etc. ? How do you know ? Who does know ? Who.
pretends to know ? If a thousand more manuscripts should be
discovered, or forged and palmed off upon scholars, must the exact
words be picked from them also ?
6. If one life is too short for such a work, then no man can ever
HAVE
SUFFICIENT
KNOWLEDGE
TO
ENTITLE
HIM
TO
PASS . AN
therefore no man can ever have a just
right to decide such a question or to help to decide it; and therefore,,
no man being capable of forming an independent opinion upon it,,
no two men can ever rationally agree upon the subject; and there
fore, lastly, no number of men can ever have the just right to palm
off their version upon the world, or the nation, or to express any
opinion whatsoever upon the subject, except to say, “ The task, is
too great for the human intellect, and can never be satisfactorily
performed.”
Such is the corner into which Dr. Newth unconsciously drives
the Christian critics, himself with them; and. by so doing, he un
wittingly condemns the course taken by himself and his fellow
workers who produced the Revised Version; for they undertook a
work no number of men could possibly perform, and they settled all
disputes and doubts by a majority vote !—voted what was, what was
not God’s word ! Had the Revisers been only half as many, or
double the number, how different the result of their voting must
have been !
opinion upon the subject;
�h
• NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
13
And it must not be forgotten that no other company can ever
succeed any better, for the work is such that it never can be final.
In 1611 it was possible for the King and Parliament to produce a
Bible pretending to be the right one ; and most English speaking
people accepted and used it as a genuine work. Scholars for ages
have known better, and many would like to supersede it. But they
cannot. An Act of Parliament now would never bind the people on
such a subject; and no one church could issue a Bible that all
would accept. No one man can do it. All the churches could
never be brought to agreement on it. And there it rests—nay, not
rests. There is no more rest for the churches, none for God’s most
holy word. Scepticism has won ! The Bible is logically as dead
as Psalmanazer’s History of Formosa; and during the next genera
tion or two the masses will be as well satisfied of that as scholars
are at the present day.
The whole question of the value of the Bible has been unwittingly
raised, in the last few years, by the English and American clergy ;
and this has been done by projecting and executing the Revision of
the common English Bible. The first definite step was taken in
this work, February io, 1870, when the upper house of Convocation
or “ gathering ” of the English Church parsons passed a resolution
appointing a committee to perform the work of revising, amending
and repairing the word of God.
There cannot be the least doubt that those men who then assem
bled expected to do a good stroke of business for their party and
more or less embarrass, and perhaps defeat, the enemies of the faith.
Whether they have succeeded in their object will be seen as we
proceed. In fact, I may say just here that, in my esteem, no step
was ever taken by a large section of the Church more fatal in its
effects upon the popular superstition than this revision business.
Had the common English Bible, which was launched upon the
world in 1611, been merely a faulty book more or less misrepresent
ing the written or manuscript Bible that preceded it, the revision
and correction would have been easily accomplished, and no harm
could have resulted.
Let the reader try to grip the situation. If I wrote a lengthy
article for the Freethinker, and the printers made serious blunders in
the printed copy, it would be very easy to correct them by means of
my manuscript. Yes, but suppose that, instead of one manuscript,
there were from one to two thousand manuscripts of the same article,
all written in different hands, with different spelling ; many of the
manuscripts being unreadable in hundreds of places. And suppose
most of those manuscripts were mere fragments, and only one or
two (or not one) contained the entire article I wrote. And suppose
one or two contained the article and much more besides that I never
wrote.
Suppose, further, that the original manuscript which I wrote
could nowhere be found ; and that all the thousand or two thousand
manuscripts of the article now known were copies of copies of copies
and so on to an utterly unknown extent; and that all those copies
were by unknown persons, in places and times unknown. Add to
�i4
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
this confusion the additional fact that the manuscripts contradicted
or varied from each other in about 150,000 places, and that no man
or number of men could tell which of them was nearest to or most
remote from the original.
In addition to all this, suppose that no one knew what copy or
copies the printers printed my article from, that they never told any
one, or refused to tell, or were out of the way and could not be
questioned.
Once more, suppose there were a dozen first-rate scholars engaged
in sifting the copies, and that no two of them agreed as to which
was best to follow or the nearest to the original.
And then suppose that no one had ever seen the original, but
merely those copies of copies, etc., and that I would not or could
not speak a word or take a step to clear up the mystery which no
other person knew. And, lastly, suppose it doubtful if I ever did
write the article, or that I, its reputed author, could not be proved
ever to have lived.
With all these difficulties before you, how could you, or any other
person, ever tell how the original article read and how it should be
reproduced ?
The case supposed is almost exactly parallel to the case of the
Bible, or to keep to our present subject, the New Testament. And
the attempt to Revise the book has had the effect of calling public
attention to these fatal facts as it never before was called ; and
further, it has demonstrated to scholars themselves the utter hope
lessness of all attempts to recover the original New Testament, or
of deciding what it was like, whence it came, or what was its value.
Note once more the leading facts. The common English Bible
was revised, patched, or repaired in 1611, the cobblers never having
made it known what materials (manuscripts) they used in the
patching, vamping, caulking, puttying, painting, gilding, or whatever
name you may please to give to their work. This was very dishonest;
but they did worse, they declared on the title-page that they translated
from the original and compared with former translations. The first
statement is a deliberate falsehood, for they knew the manuscripts
they had were not the original—unless, by the way, the Bible,
instead of being an ancient book, turns out to have been first
written a few centuries ago. If that is so, the translators of the
common Bible may have used the originals. But no Christian will
adopt that view.
During 250 years many scholars worked with a will to improve
the common Bible, and in the course of time materials were gathered
up from many quarters; and for generations there was a growing
conviction amongst the learned that something required to be done
to bring the Bible into closer agreement with the “ original,” as they
are pleased to call the manuscripts.
But just here the difficulties begin in earnest, and every step
lands the workers deeper into the bog of uncertainty.
The Greek text of the New Testament first published by Erasmus
and patched and mended by the Stephens of Paris, and called
generally the Textus Receptus, Received Text, etc., was quietly set aside
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
15
as of no authority at all by the men who made the Revised Version
of 1881. Theyssay, in the preface to the New Testament, that all
the Greek Testaments used by the translators of 1611 “were
founded for the most part on manuscripts of late date, few in number,
and used with little critical skill,” This text of the old translators,
they say, “ needed thorough revision.” They add, “A revision of
the Greek text was the necessary foundation of our work ; but it
did not fall within our province to construct a continuous and
Complete Greek text.”
Why not ? They imply that that was really necessary; and
therefore it ought to have been done, and done before going any
further ; for what was wanted was not a translation of some imperfect
and uncertain text, but of the undoubted word of God.
“ Textual Criticism,” say they in their preface, “ as applied to the
Greek New Testament, forms a special study of much intricacy and
difficulty, and EVEN NOW LEAVES ROOM FOR CON
SIDERABLE VARIETY OF OPINION AMONG COM
PETENT CRITICS. Different schools of criticism have been
represented among us, and have together contributed to the final
result.”
Just so. They mean to say, but don’t like to speak plainly, that
the Revisers were often at sixes and sevens, and found it impossible
to settle their disputes but by a majority vote ! Fancy settling
what Homer wrote in the same way ! Fancy settling history by a
vote ! Fancy deciding points in Mathematics in that way ! And
then fancy voting upon the question, Which manuscripts shall we
follow in this or that verse or chapter ?
Yes, the Revisers voted, for that was the only way of settling
their difficulties—the only way. And their vote tells us how God
wrote and what he wrote. This is a clever dodge, mind. And it
is precisely the same dodge resorted to at Rome to find out who it
is the Holy Ghost has decided to make the next Pope. It seems a
bit astonishing that men of any reflection at all should make such a
confession ; but, then, what can they or could they do ? There is
no method of settling the points in dispute ; they cannot possibly be
settled ; and, I suppose voting is as good a way as any of performing
the farce which pretends to solve questions which are in their
nature insoluble. But the Revisers should have been candid enough
to tell the world plainly that their work was nothing but a farce,
a farce of the solemn kind, no doubt, and one mixed up with prayer
and other magic ceremonies; but really a farce of the worst
description.
Let us see where we now are. The Revisers of 1881 had set
aside the Old Greek Text as of no authority; but they put
no authoritative one in its room. So we are now without any
Greek text that has authority. True, Drs. Hort and Westcott
tried to palm off a Greek Testament of their own manufacture
upon their fellow Revisers; and they seem to have succeeded
admirably.
I have said that the Revisers of 1881 set aside the Old Greek
Testament, which the translators of the common Bible called the
�i6
NEW TESTAMENT
MANUSCRIPTS.
“original Greek” in 1611, and substituted for it a Greek text
manufactured by Drs. Westcott and Hort, two of the Revisers.
This conduct would have been quite honest and proper, if the
Revisers had only been so happy as to have discovered a better and
more reliable text; but had they ? It appears that some scholars
as pious as themselves and not less learned, are of opinion that the
Revisers really set aside a good text for a much worse one, as a few
notes and quotations will make clear to the reader.
The Rev. Canon Cook, in The Revised Version Considered, London,
1882, earnestly defends the old Greek against the new. I think he
makes out a good case against the new text, but he leaves us com
pletely in the dark as to the value of the old. He demonstrates
that the new idol of the Revisers is not the right and proper object
of worship; but he fails to establish any claims for the old one.
He prefers the old Greek used by the translators of 1611, but his
preference seems to be more a matter of taste than argument.
Mr. Cook admits that the manuscripts relied upon by the Revisers
are very ancient; but he contends that, “ in the earliest ages the
stupidity and licence of copyists was far greater than at any later
period, the result being that the most ancient manuscripts are
tainted with the most numerous and most serious errors ” (p. 7).
This is extremely encouraging ! If the oldest scribes were such
clumsy copyists or such wilful corrupters, and from them has
descended to us “ the divine word,” as we have it, of what use or
authority can it be ? Manifestly none.
The modern critics cannot be relied on either. Tischendorf, the
greatest of them all, it is said, produced several editions of his
Greek New Testament. After he found the Sinaitic Manuscript,
in 1859, he was so full of its importance that he set to work and
produced a new edition of his Greek Testament, differing in more
than 3,000 places from his previous edition. But, as Mr. Cook says,
the larger portion of these changes have been given up as untenable
by editors who have followed Tischendorf (p. 8).
And so the solemn farce of supplying us with “ God’s word ”
proceeds from folly to folly, each successive editor overturning the
work of his predecessors. What Mr. Cook says of two contending
critics who came to ink and paper blows over the question, is
instructive. He says, “ I cannot but regard Dean Burgon’s argu
ment on one side, and Dr. Hort’s on the other, as remarkable
instances of the use and the misuse of vast learning and of equally
remarkable subtlety” (p. 147).
I think the same remark will apply to all the ablest works on
theology. No learning, no subtlety can settle a single point in it.
And, in truth—I speak from experience and long study—the more
learning is brought to bear upon any theological dogma, the more
hopeless does it become. The modern critics have fallen into the
terrible mistake of trying to prove their doctrines by reason or
rational processes. They forget that, not reason, but the blindest
of blind faith is the only saving virtue, the only way by which a
man can receive the Gospel. Wordly wisdom, that is, enlightened
reason, has nothing to do with it. You must, as when taking a
�NEW .TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
17
header into the sea, shut your eyes and plunge ! To wait for reason
to lead faith or to confirm faith is to be a Sceptic and to reject the
whole of Christianity as an unreasonable superstition.
I quote next a few important passages from The Revision Revised,
by John William Burgon, B.D., Dean of Chichester. London,
1883.
'
Let the reader remember that our Revisers of 1881 discarded the
old Greek Testament as of no authority. This fact must be
remembered all through. And so must the other, namely, that
Drs. Hort and Westcott manufactured a new Greek Testament and
induced the Revisers to accept that as God’s most holy word. The
Bishop of Gloucester accepts the new text and defends it. Dr.
Scrivener, says Burgon, held that this new text was based on “ the
sandy ground of ingenious conjecture”....... that the work of the
new editors must be received by a sort of intuition or “ dismissed
....... as precarious or even visionary”....... “Dr. Hort’s system
is entirely destitute of historical foundation”....... and of “all
probability.”
So the reader sees where we are—The Revisers repudiate the old
text and cannot induce the best scholars to accept their new one !
The Revisers say, in effect, “ Ladies and Gentlemen, you have
innocently believed that the Bible you are so familiar with is God’s
most holy word, translated from the original. We are sorry to tell
you it is nothing of the kind. The book from which this translation
was made is of no authority whatsoever, we assure you, Ladies and
Gentlemen ! But do not be alarmed. We have found two manu
scripts, the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus, both
preserved by the mysterious providence of God, which also raised
us up to study and to set them before the world. And by patching
together these two famous manuscripts, with quite a multitude of
others, we have, by divine assistance, produced, or rather, repro
duced, the word of God in as correct and elegant a style as the
resources of scholarship and piety combined can ever hope to produce
it, and as near to the original as the most fastidious piety can
■demand.”
Such, in plain language, is the position taken up by the Revisers.
But, unfortunately, just as they reject the old text, so do other
scholars reject their new one; and the unhappy Christians are left
without any word of God at all; and the wisest of the godly
.scholars can merely grip this or that text in sheer desperation ; for
reason and science declare that not one of them is of any authority
whatsoever.
Burgon says, the Greek text on which the Revisionists spent ten
years “ was a wholly untrustworthy performance ; was full of the
gravest errors from begining to end.” It is “ the most vicious
(text) in existence.” It was also smuggled into the Revisionists’
camp and palmed off upon the members.
The two chief manuscripts used by the fabricators of the new
text differ immensely from the old text. In the Gospels alone, the
Vatican manuscript differs in 7,578 places ; and the Sinaitic in
•8,972 places. This manuscript has been tampered with no less
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
than ten different times between the 6th and 12th centuries(p. 12).
Burgon grows jocular, and declares that if Shakespeare were to
be revised as the Bible has been, Hamlet’s Soliloquy, “ To be, or
not to be,” etc., would read thus >—The Alexandrine Manuscript:—
Toby, or not Toby ; that is the question. The Vatican Manuscript:—
Tob or not, is the question. The Sinaitic Manuscript:—To be a
Tub, or not to be a Tub ; the question is that. Ephrem’s Manu
script :—The question is, to beat, or not to beat Toby ? Beza’s
Manuscript:—The only question is this : to beat that Toby, or to.
be a Tub ” (p. 15).
No doubt exists in the mind of anyone acquainted with Hebrew
or Greek that, if the authors of the Bible could be resurrected, they
would find hundreds of texts quite as ridiculously represented and
as fully muddled as the Shakespeare text just given. Could the'
ancient authors of these holy books be found and consulted, how
astonished would they feel at the marvellous changes made in their
works, and most especially at the meanings now attached to their'
words.
Let the reader reflect, that no two men, born in the same
place, speaking the same language and educated in the same
school, can ever fully understand each other. Two men, all
their lives in diverse conditions, are still less able to comprehendeach other. But let thousands of years intervene between the
writer of a book and his reader, not to mention the fact that
their languages are so different, how can the latter comprehend
the former ? most especially so if it is extremely doubtful what
the author wrote ?
Even if the so-called God’s book had been preserved just
as it was first written, with a full vocabulary of all the words,
and a perfect grammar, even then a perfect understandingwould have been impossible in our day ; and the farther
removed we were from the times and conditions of the authors,
the greater and greater would become the impossibility of
understanding the work—of putting ourselves en rapport with
those who wrote it.
The case of the Bible is immeasurably'worse than that; for we
know not who wrote a line of it; nor what was his motive; nor his
circumstances ; nor his opinions ; nor his moral and social character ;
nor his knowledge of things ; and, worse still, so imperfectly have,
his words descended to us, that the best scholarship can never decide
what he did or did not write.
Burgon proceeds to say that the Sinaitic, the Vatican, and the
Beza manuscripts—those mostly relied upon by the Revisers—arethe “ most scandalously corrupt copies extant :—exhibit the most shamefrilly
mutilated texts which are anywhere to be met with....... the depositories,
of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and,
intentional perversions of truth,” etc. (p. 6).
He proceeds to criticise the leading editors or manufacturers of
Greek Testaments. Lachmann, who put out a Greek Testament
about 90 years ago, which was based on three or four manuscripts,
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
J.g
only ; Tregelles, who spent his life upon this kind of work, rejected
*
8g out of every go manuscripts, and manufactured his edition of the
“ Word of God ” out of the remainder. Upon Tischendorf, Burgon
is especially severe ; though one can scarcely see why. The fact is,
New Testament Textual Criticism is a game rather than a Science
—an art, certainly it is—the art of thimblerigging, of finding
solutions for insoluble puzzles, of making out a case where there is
none. Taste, prejudice, envy of other critics, love of fame, dogmatism,
narrow-mindedness, perversity, monomania, pet ideas, religious
fervor, callousness, and many other petty principles, prompt and
guide the critic in his work. Never was there a field of inquiry so
well adapted to develop all the crooked elements of one’s nature—
•except the field occupied by the popish priests and especially the
Jesuits. Indeed, all the leading elements of Jesuitry find ample
employment in this department of manufacture—the manufacture
■of different versions and editions of that unspeakable sham, “ God’s
Holy Word.” Common sense, if that were allowed to influence them,
would demonstrate to them the impossibility of a man, who is
dominated by a creed and by pious prejudices, ever coming to
rational and candid conclusions in such an inquiry. Such people
can never deal honestly with the Bible, for blind, stubborn prejudice,
sways them at every step. Their eternal salvation, so they solemnly
believe, depends upon their arriving at certain foregone conclusions.
Those pious “ critics ” deserve no more respect than performing
.animals in a circus. They may be clever and amusing, but their
whole performance is automatic and preordained by their antecedents
and environment.
Here before me lies The History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament by Eduard (Wilhelm Eugen) Reuss; Edinburgh, 1884;
and what says it respecting the manuscripts ? The following
•quotations will show.
“The original copies of the New Testament books....... do not
appear to have remained in existence long. On account of the poor
quality of the paper, they must soon have become unfit for, use and
finally have been lost, even if they were not destroyed sooner by
violence and neglect. IT IS CERTAIN THAT NO ANCIENT
WRITER MAKES MENTION OF THEM ” (p. 367).
This quotation gives us the whole case. 1. The books were
written on poor paper! Well, then, probably they were to a great
■extent illegible from the beginning ; and hence would arise the con
fusion we find in the Gospels, etc., that have descended to us.
2. But would the Holy Ghost have been such an absolute fool as to
permit his writings or inspirations, intended to remain as a permanent
guide to man, to be written on such flimsy stuff! To suppose so, is
to fling contempt upon the Holy Ghost. 3. Would inspired men
act so idiotically ? Would men who supposed they were writing
divine revelation be likely to put it upon such fragile stuff ?
* It is boasted of Tregelles that he devoted 30 years to examining manuscripts,
•etc., worked himself blind at it. Well, Du Chat spent 40 years on the works of
Rabelais! Tastes differ. Rabelais is less evil, a million-fold, than the Bible.
�20
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
5. Would those who first received this divine truth be likely to
permit accident or time to destroy its vehicle, not to mention
destruction by violence ?
The books of the Sibyl, kept so long in ancient Rome, were not
written upon such perishable material. The revelations of Egypt
and Chaldaea were recorded on clay tablets (say, pottery), and on
stone; and are as sound and strong to-day as they were several
thousand years ago. How was it the Holy Ghost or his agents
were so much more careless or foolish than the Pagan writers ?
Uninspired men have always been wiser, if not so cunning as the
fellows inspired by God.
If no ancient writer mentions the original copies of the New
Testament, of what value can it be ? Absolutely none. This state
ment of Reuss (and other Christian critics) is an admission that
Christianity is not historical, that the New Testament is a forgery;
for had the writers been known, those who received the books from
their authors must have named or recorded so interesting and
important a fact. Reflect upon the case. Some eight or nine
authors are alleged to have contributed their quota to the New
Testament, namely, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, Peter, James,
Jude. Is it not a most singular thing that no one of their contem
poraries should have mentioned the interesting fact that they were
inspired, or authorised to write this or that portion of the New
Testament ? Is it not astounding that no one should mention the
fact that he received a given portion of the New Testament from
the author’s own hand ?
I feel sure that this negative evidence, when carefully weighed
by thoughtful people, must prove absolutely fatal to the claims of
the New Testament.
Reuss refers to the well-known tales of finding the autographs of
John at Ephesus in the fourth century ; and in the foundations of
the Temple of Jerusalem, in Julian’s day; of Matthew in the grave of
Barnabas in Cyprus, etc., and stigmatises them as fables. Still,
fables though the tales certainly are, they are instructive,' although
Reuss fails to note that. Those fables show that ancient Christian
authors were puzzled and troubled about the originals and could not
imagine how it was that their predecessors had not mentioned them.
And the fables were invented to fill the painful gap and satisfy the
anxious inquiries of the faithful.
Reuss goes on to discuss the variations in existing manuscripts,
and says, the farther we go back in the history of the text the more
arbitrary do we find the treatment of it by transcribers—that is, in
plain English, the early copiers took great liberties with what they
copied, and the farther we go back the more of such liberties do we
find. Nay, the Apostles themselves, or their amanuenses “ may
have made mistakes” ; and “ the question comes whether the text,
ever existed in complete purity at all, and in what sense” (p. 370).
If one had lighted upon this in very early life, it must have taken
his breath away, considering how confidently his teachers had
assured him that the Word of God was perfect, and that the writerswrote with an unerring hand.
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
21
Reuss says the changes so very early introduced into the text of
the New Testament “were doubtless, for the most part, such aswere designed for its improvement” (p. 371).
Of one thing I am certain, no man who really supposed and
devoutly believed he was reading God’s inspired word could havetried to improve it. Only a doubter or confirmed disbeliever in itsdivine authority could have done that.
If the changes were introduced purposely to improve the booksz
then so long as this continued to be done, the books could not havebeen considered binding, infallible, etc.
If the copyists improved, we ask, To what extent did they do so ?
Did they leave out whole sentences, sections, books ? Did they
invent, borrow, and insert to equal extent ? And how do you know
to what degree the “original” New Testament differed from the
present? Alas for orthodoxy! No means exist for settling that
most essential matter.
Reuss even suggests that some of the readings in the New Testa
ment are due to “freaks of fancy,” although they may be “only
blunders ” (p. 372). Well, when the Holy Ghost is inspiring a
man to write and blunders occur, or “ freaks of fancy ” display
themselves in the writing, whose blunders, etc. are they ? The
Ghost’s or his Clerk’s ? I wish the critics would settle that.
My Christian author proceeds. Alterations, he says, were made
for enrichment; the Gospels were enriched by traditional matter ;
they were also purposely made more like each other, and quotations
from the Old Testament, which had been wrongly quoted, were cor
rected ! Other writers wrote their thoughts or comments in the
margin of their manuscripts, and these were, by-and-bye, copied into
the text. Look at our facsimile on a former page, where kata
markon is seen in the lower margin. That might have been copied
into the text by the next scribe, as many words have been in the
New Testament manuscripts now in existence.
This writer admits that, not the New Testament, but tradition,
decided matters of faith in the early Church ; and therefore the book
was in danger of being altered to suit the tradition. Then he refers
to the frequent mention in early writers of wilful corruptions of the
text for controversial purposes. In this connection he shows up the
unscrupulous characters of the orthodox church fathers, apparently
forgetting that in so doing he damns most effectually the only
witnesses for Christianity. In fact, no Christian critic can traverse
the ground of New Testament history without making statements
altogether fatal to the claims of his superstition. (See pp. 375-6).
I must call attention to the several facsimiles. The manuscripts
are. all written without breaks or points. Reuss says, “ Aside from
the general scarcity of books, reading was rendered difficult for the
unpractised by the total lack of all explanatory pointing. It was
not until the close of the ninth century, after isolated attempts in
earlier times, that copyists generally introduced the breathings and
accents into the copies of the New Testament. A still greater
hindrance to the easy reading of the text was the custom of writing
without breaks between the words. “ This gave occasion foh
�22
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
MANY MISUNDERSTANDINGS AND MUCH THEOLOGICAL WRANGLING ”
(P- 386).
It is not every Christian critic who will speak so plainly as Reuss.
To see how awkward it is to read without spaces and stops, take the
same passage which appears in the facsimile 1, this time in English
capitals and without any stops or spaces.
ANDTH EYSAIDAMONGTH EMSELVESWHOSHALL
ROLLUSAWAYTH ESTONEFROMTHEDOOROFTH E
SEPULCHREAN DWH ENTH EYLOOKEDTH EYSAW
THATTH ESTON EWASRO LLEDAWAYFO RITWASV
ERYGREATANDENTERINGINTOTHESEPU LCH RE
TH EYSAWAYOU NGMANSITTINGONTH ERIGHTSI
DECLOTH EDINALONGWHITEGARMENTAN DTHE
YWEREAFFRIGHTE DAN DH ESAITHUNTOTH EMB
ENOTAFFRIGHTEDYES E EK J ESUSOFN AZARETH
WHICHWASCRUCI FI EDH EISRISEN H EISNOTH E
REBEHOLDTHEPLACEWHERETHEYLAIDHIMBU
TGOYOU RWAYTE LLHISDI SCI PLESAN D PETE RT
HATH EGOETH B EFOREYOUINTOGALILEETH ER
ESHALLYESEEHIMASHESAI DU NTOYOUAN DTHE
YWENTOUTQUICKLYAN DFLEDFROMTH ESEPUL
CH REFORTH EYTREM B LEDANDWEREAMAZEDN
EITHERSAIDTHEYANYTHINGTOANYMAN FORTH
EYWEREAFRAID
As the old written letters are not half so well formed as our printed
•ones, it must have been all the harder to read them correctly.
Though the manuscripts, says Reuss, are our best sources of
knowledge of the original New Testament, yet they can never vouch
for the correctness of any reading, because they were all written
after the text was corrupted.
Hear again : “the age of a text is only determined with great
difficulty and little certainty, from a comparison of many manu
scripts,” etc. (p. 387).
In all this Reuss confirms what I have so often said. He also
confirms me in reference to the versions of the Bible, by pointing
out that an ancient version needs to be proved itself before it can
be used as a witness for the text (p. 404).
Reuss openly admits that all attempts to restore the New
Testament text to its original purity have failed, and must ever
fail (p. 445).
That is the plain truth about the matter ; and when the clergy
are honest enough to prefer truth to place and pay they will say
the same.
No doubt the reader is about tired of this subject; but I must say
a little more.
The New Testament is of unknown origin, unknown date,
unknown birthplace, unknown authorship. There is not a single
question about its history, for the alleged first two or three centuries
of its existence, which can be answered. Let us ask a few. Who
wrote the Four Gospels ? History does not say. What authority
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
25
had they ? The writers do not tell us. Were they eye-witnesses ?
Manifestly not, for they never profess to be. Are they known ?
Not at all; only one of the Gospels pretends to be written by any
particular person. When was any one of them written ? No one
knows. In what language ? No one knows. On what material ?
No one can tell.
What Church first possessed a Gospel ? History gives no reply.
When and where did the Gospels first circulate ? We cannot tell..
What language were they (or any one of them) first written m ?
No scholar can answer that question. What became of the original
manuscripts ? No one reports ever seeing one of them.
The probability is that the New Testament is a set of monkish
books or pamphlets, written for edification—that is, to rouse religious
or devotional feelings, not to instruct. The stories in the . New
Testament were probably never regarded as true when first written
they were a sort of parables, allegories, tales, intended to convey
some lesson or to stir devotion. Those who first told or wrote the
tales could never have supposed they were relating sober facts, and
would doubtless be abundantly astonished if they could know how
solemnly scholars brood over their ridiculous tales, and try to make:
biography and history out of them.
The New Testament is no more true than the Mythologicalstories of Greece and Rome ; than the Gesta Romanovum ; than the
lives of the popish saints and martyrs; than the multitudinous
stories of saints and miracles found so plentifully in the Bible itself
and in so-called Church history. When Gulliver's Travels and the.
Arabian Nights have been proved to be history, I, for one, shall be
prepared to accept the New Testament also.
So long as it is a merit to believe the impossible, I suppose the
impossible stories of the New Testament will continue to be
swallowed by people of a gulping disposition. But of one thing we.
may be certain, and that is, reason never swallowed the Arabian.
Nights or the New Testament; and never can.
I will quote a few brief passages from Hug's Introduction to the
New Testament; Andover (U.S.), 1836. This is Professor Moses
Stuart’s edition. The work is a learned one, and rather advanced,
for its date.
Hug says (pp. 68-9), “ These books (New Testament ones), whenonce circulated among the multitude, encountered all the fortunes,
which have befallen other works of antiquity....... Only the original,
writings possessed an authority beyond objection, and we might
hence expect that peculiar care would have been taken to preserve
them to posterity. Yet we have no CERTAIN INFORMA
TION WHERE THEY WERE KEPT, how long they were to
be seen, or by what accident they were lost to the world. For those
passages of the ancients which have been supposed to communicate
information respecting the autographs have in fact a totally different
purport.”....... “We have the most irrefutable proof....... that Tertullian, and not only he, but Clement, Origen, and the fathers of the
Church generally, knew nothing of the existence of the autographs,
in all those works in which they combat the heretics.”
�24
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
He goes on to show that the “Fathers” disputed with the heretics
as to how certain texts of the New Testament ought to read. If
they had known where to find the originals, those disputes could
have been settled at once. But they never appealed to the originals ;
and the only inference possible is that the “ Fathers ” never knew
those originals.
In truth, this confession is equal to giving up the whole case for
Christianity. If none of the early writers saw the originals of the
New Testament, or ever referred to them, it is idle to dispute further;
perfectly idle. The book is out of court as a nameless, fatherless
waif, a vagabond who can give no account of himself, except to say,
“ Here I am ; I don’t know what I am ; I don’t know where I came
from ; don’t know any of my family relations ; can’t tell what
country I belong to; and I don’t know anything about my age.”
“ Thus we seek in vain for the original manuscripts at a time
when nothing was known of them. They were lost, without so
much as a hint to us by what means a possession so important to
the Church perished. How shall we explain this singular fact ? ”
(Hug, pp. 67-70).
Hug does not explain it, nor can it be explained, except to the
damage^of Christianity. People do not carelessly lose or destroy
Wills, bcrip, Bills of Sale, Debentures, and other valuable docu
ments. And the original Gospels, etc., according to Church
sentiment, were worth infinitely more than all other documents
whatsoever. Yet they are never mentioned by any Church
writer!
Here is a thought that just this moment strikes me. Relics
were venerated or worshipped very early in the Church. In fact,
we cannot suppose there ever was a time when they were not.
Well, the Church has preserved—so silly fables and impudent lies
assure us—the “holy coat” that Jesus wore; the cross and its
nails; the Veronica napkin, and a crowd of other early relics.
How shall we explain the strange fact that the Church preserved
neither the original books of the New Testament, nor ever pretended
to have them ? How is it that such precious relics were never
counterfeited as most others were ?
There is but one reply, and that is, the New Testament never
became a precious book until the age of counterfeiting or manu
facturing relics had passed its prime, and it was too late to set up
the original manuscripts for worship, too late to manufacture them.
Indeed, until the Reformation the Bible held but a very subordinate
position ; and its monstrous claims since that date were invented
and pushed merely to checkmate Popery. Popery had the Infalli
bility of the Pope, or of the Church, or something, and the Reformers
set up a counter Infallibility in the Bible. Up to that date the
Bible had been little, or no better, or more authoritative, than other
holy fable books, and certainly had never reached the value or
importance of a chip of the cross, or other relics that might be
named.
This reflection, properly worked out, is quite sufficient in itself to
destroy the whole value of the Bible—except as a mere antiquity.
�NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
25
As an antiquity, its value is assured. As a divine book, it is utterly
beneath contempt.
Here is another instructive selection from Hug’s work :—“ The
fate which has befallen other works of antiquity, befel the New
Testament likewise” (p. 85). The carelessness of copyists pro
duced errors. “ But this is not all; the New Testament has had
the peculiar fate of suffering more by intentional alterations than the
works of profane literature.”
Yet Christians will often proclaim the empty and impudent boast
that the New Testament has far better evidence to connect it with
the Apostles, etc., than any ancient profane book has to show that
it was written by its reputed author. Read again the last quotation
from Hug, who proceeds to say the heretics had no hand in the
wilful alterations. In fact, he shows that the orthodox slandered
Marcion and other heretics by charging upon them corruptions of
the New Testament, which were perpetrated in the orthodox camp
itself! That will not surprise any who understand what modern
Christian malice and lying are constantly doing.
In the first four centuries, says Hug, “ Strange things had
happened in individual manuscripts ” (p. 86). He says Origen
complained much of the wilful corruptions before his day.
I think I need not continue this subject; for I have said enough
in these quotations and notes to destroy all faith in the New
Testament. And when we add the fact that the New Testament
carries its own damnation upon almost every page, the reader will
understand how baseless is the Christian superstition. The New
Testament bristles with fables, superstitions, and impossibilities.
No amount of evidence could ever prove it historical or help towards
that end. The Christians themselves would scout all the fables of
the New Testament as I do, if they found them related in connection
with any other religion than their own.
In conclusion, I may say that never was a greater failure than is
shown in the long-continued attempts to decide what is, what is not,
divine revelation. All such attempts have but demonstrated:
1. that the New Testament (I am dealing only with that just now)
is of unknown origin and date. 2. That it has no authority at all
beyond what blind custom, blind prejudice, tyranny, or a majority
vote imparts to it. .3. That all the scholars in the world are not
able to decide how any text of the New Testament originally ran.
This is literally true. 4. The result of the 300 years’ labor and
expense bestowed by Christians upon this book is to dissipate for
ever all rational claims on its behalf and to explode the entire
authority of the Churches. In one word, it has left us destitute of
all Christian revelation and of all rational grounds for belief in such
a thing.
To the Freethinker this is satisfactory. It blows away a world
of cant, hypocrisy, and clerical impudence and tyranny.
For ages, from Bentley onward, the Christians boasted that,
though the New Testament manuscripts differed from each other in
30,000 (Bentley’s admission) places, or 150,000 (as latertim.es show)
not one doctrine of Christianity was affected by them ! That boast
�‘26
NEW TESTAMENT MANUSCRIPTS.
is the condensed essence of impudence or of ignorance. For the
variations and other facts combined, strip the Churches of the book
'itself upon which they founded all their pretence and all their
doctrine. Textual Criticism has undermined and blown up the
entire fabric of Christianity and left it destitute of any plausible
excuse for continuing to exist, except blind custom and—cash.
If they deny what I say, let them at once inform us on what
authority they receive the life of Jesus and the rest of the incidents
and doctrines of the New Testament. Let them say on what and
whose authority they receive the New Testament itself. And, lastly,
let them tell us what the New Testament is—I mean, whether all
the books now in it ought to be there, whether none other should
be inserted ; and on what manuscripts or other evidence they rely.
Most confidently I deny their ability to meet these demands.
And therefore I assert that Christianity, in itself, is a gross and
irrational superstition. As it is put before the world, it is the worst
imposture that could be conceived.
�APPENDIX.
Finally, in the Athenaum, June 16, I am gratified to find thefullest confirmation of my views, the most complete justification of
the strongest opinions I have expressed above. The reader may
remember that I quoted the work of Rev. H. A. Scrivener, M.A.,„
D.D., etc. That gentleman was confessedly and by common
consent one of the most sober and reliable critics in this department
of learning, not brilliant, but solid and thoughtful. Since his death
(just recently, in fact), there is issued a work of his entitled
Adversaria Critica Sacra, which the Athenceum reviews. In fairnessto all parties I quote all the critic says upon the subject:—
“ These Adversaria Critica Sacra consist of collations of forty-nine
*
MSS. of portions of the New Testament, Six MSS. containing frag
ments of the Septuagint and a record of the variations from the
Textus Receptus of the principal early editions of the New Testament.
A minute and accurate account is given of each MS. It is needless
to say that Dr. Scrivener did his work with the utmost conscientious
ness, and that his labors are of great value, and deserve the heartiest
recognition from all Biblical scholars.
He made no effort to
determine how far his new collations will modify the text of the N ew
Testament, but throughout the book there runs a current of
opposition to the principles laid down by Hort in his Introduction to
the New Testament in the original Greek, edited by him and Bishop ■
Westcott. It begins in a note on p. vi. of the Introduction, in which
Dr. Scrivener states that Dean Burgon
‘ Had been engaged day and night for years in making a complete
index or view of the manuscripts used by the Nicene (and ante-Nicene)
Fathers, by way of showing that they were not identical with those
copied in the Sinaitic and Vatican codices, and inasmuch as they
were older, they must needs be purer and more authentic than these
overvalued uncials.’ ”
In a postscript to the Introduction, Dr. Scrivener says that Dean
Burgon
“ Very earnestly requested me that if I lived to complete the
present work, I would publicly testify that my latest labors had in no
wise modified my previous critical convictions, namely, that the true
text of the New Testament can best and most safely be gathered
from a comprehensive acquaintance with every source of information
yet open to us, whether they be manuscripts of the original text,
Versions, or Fathers, rather than from a partial representation of
three or four authorities, which, though in date the more ancient and
akin in character, cannot be made even tolerably to agree together.”
Dr. Scrivener renews his avowal, and illustrates it by an instance.
The opinion comes out most strongly in the words of Mr. Hoskier,
who collated Evan. 604 for Dr. Scrivener. Dr. Scrivener says:—
“ Mr. Hoskier’s conclusion shall be given in his own words : ‘ I
defy any one after having carefully perused the foregoing lists, and.
�ii.
APPENDIX.
after having noted the almost incomprehensible combinations and
permutation of both the uncial and cursive Manuscripts, to go back
again to the teaching of Dr. Hort with any degree of confidence.
How useless and superfluous to talk of Evan. 604 having a large
western element or of it Siding in many places with the neutral text. The
whole question of families and recensions is thus brought prominently
before the eye, and with space we could largely comment upon the
deeply interesting combinations which thus present themselves to the
critic. But do let us realise that we are in the infancy of this part
of the Science....... and not imagine that we have successfully laid
certain immutable foundation stones, and can safely continue to
build thereon. It is not so; much, if not all, of these foundations
must be demolished....... It has cost me a vast amount of labor and
trouble to prepare this statement of evidence with any degree of
accuracy; but I am sure it is worth while, and I trust that it may
stimulate others to come to our aid, and also help to annul much of
Dr. Hort’s erroneous theories.’ ”
Such is the quotation from the Athenaum. I have stated in the
pamphlet that the translators of the Authorised Version declared
they translated from the “ original ’’—which was a lie. For two
centuries and a half this falsehood has been imposed upon most
English speaking Bible readers. When the Revised Version was
made, the so-called “ original ” of the old translators was set aside
in favor of a Greek text manufactured by Dr. Hort and the present
Bishop of Durham. In the above quotation, the reader will see how
thoroughly Dr. Scrivener, as well as Dr. Burgon, repudiates the
Hort-Westcott Greek text.
But reflect. One set of critics flings up one Greek text another
flings up another !
I must once more solemnly affirm that anything like certainty in
Greek Testament criticism is impossible—except the damning
certainty that it is impossible to discover whence the New Testament
came, or to find the history of any of the manuscripts.
Criticism, even as conducted by Christian critics, has proved
Christianity to be unhistorical and the New Testament of unknown
authorship and date.—Liberator, Melbourne, August 11, 1894.
�SOME WORKS BY G. W. FOOTE
Price. Post.
Atheism and Morality
Bible and Beer
Bible God, The
d.
d.
0 2
0 4
0 2
|
|
s.
Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and
Inquiring Christians. A new edition,
revised and handsomely printed. Cheap
edition ...
... paper cover, Is. 6d.; cloth 2 6
Book of God, The, in the Light of the Higher
Criticism. With Special Reference to Dean
Farrar’s Apology ...
... Paper, Is.; cloth 2 0
Christianity and Progress.
Second and
cheaper edition ...
...
...
...01
Christianity and Secularism paper Is.; cloth 16
Crimes of Christianity
...
224 pp., cloth 2 6
Comic Sermons and Other Fantasias
... 0 8
Darwin on God
...
...
...
... o 6
Defence of Free Speech ...
...
... 0 4
Dropping The Devil : and Other Free Church
Performances
...
...
...
...02
Dying Atheist, The. A Story.
...
... 0 1
Flowers of Freethought.
First Series, cloth 2 6
Flowers of Freethought. Second Series, cloth 2 6
Grand Old Book, The. A Reply to the Grand
Old Man.
...
Is.; bound in cloth 1 6
Hall of Science Libel Case, with Full and
True Account of the “ Leeds Orgies.”
... 0 3
Infidel Death-Beds.
Second edition, much
enlarged ...
...
...
...
... 0 8
Interview with the Devil...
...
... 0 2
Is Socialism Sound? Four Nights’ Public
Debate with Annie Besant...
...
... 1 0
2|
2
|
2
3
1
1
1
-|
|
8
3
1|
1
1
i
1|
�Works by G. W. FOOTE.-ContM.
Is the Bible Inspired ?
Mundi ...
...
A Criticism of Lux s. d.
...
...
01
Ingersollism Defended against Archdeacon
Farrar ...
...
...
...
... o 2
Impossible Creed, The. An Open Letter to
Bishop Magee on the Sermon on the Mount ...
0 2
John Morley as a Freethinker
...
...
0 2
Letters to the Clergy. (128 pages.)
...
1 0
Letters to Jesus Christ ...
...
...0 4
Lie in Five Chapters, or Hugh Price Hughes’
Converted Atheist
...
...
...01
Mrs. Besant’s Theosophy. A Candid Criticism 0 2
My Resurrection. A Missing Chapter from
the Gospel of Matthew
...
...
... 02
New Cagliostro, The. An Open Letter to
Madame Blavatsky
...
...
...02
Peculiar People. An Open Letter to Mr.
Justice Wills
...
...
...
...01
£
|
|
x.
2
f
|
|
x
%
|
Philosophy of Secularism ...
...
...03
x
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh ...
o 6 1
Rome or Atheism? The Great Alternative ... 0 3 1
Royal Paupers
...
...
...
... o 2
|
Salvation Syrup : or Light on Darkest England.
A Reply to General Booth ...
...
... 0
2 x
Secularism and Theosophy. A Rejoinder to
Mrs. Besant
...
...
...
... 0 2 x
Theism or Atheism ...
...
...
...
i o ix
The Jewish Life of Christ
Was Jesus Insane?...
...
What Is Agnosticism?
...
Who was the Father of Jesus?
Will Christ Save Us?
...
...
...
...
....
...
...0
... o
... 0
... 0
... o
6
1
3
2
6
The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle-street, London, E.C.
1
|
x
|
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
The New Testament manuscripts, or, Christianity completely undermined
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: London
Collation: [3], [i]-v, [10]-26, ii p. ; 22 cm.
Notes: "With fac-similes of MSS."--Front cover. Appendix dated "Liberator", Melbourne, August 11, 1894. "Some works by G.W. Foote" listed on unnumbered pages at the end. Includes extracts in Ancient Greek. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Symes, Joseph [1841-1906]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1906
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N632
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The New Testament manuscripts, or, Christianity completely undermined), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible-Evidences
Bible. N.T.-Criticism
NSS