1
10
7
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/31dc372aac8a7e084500b5342c8b430e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VgIAdFeocO002HGOYK%7EPQRV9qCvb0-5UQcfaf8USYn3LyjF961DlDmOvAqDPp2Trz4v1YrsLa1itdbag6FfBBfgrCEpzUAYMU5DQYZ0oJc9fiiiVt930kMw4G9FeMwjEI9qRCIIjUN37ILCYJesto6GFj6q8Yq%7ESuM3RQ1gF-Y2hIfqOYSAJhmNBLkC4KTYQ1EKh-301-belDW5OF2fdWGe54shOCX1KzhLbgr894N7vENPK8BoZtvpTQ3fR5jcv%7ERjJAx929pjWTmjn0pQdkkD1K8Y1nrffZoBO1vlgln-VtlgAcbJ6PdSzaxdjxps8D7xEgpokb7t0SI2dE3VKkg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
67bf747a392163bf3b160de22a1c0744
PDF Text
Text
CT
THE
TACTICS AND DEFEAT
OF THE
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY.
BY
THOMAS SCOTT.
Great men are not always wise; neither do the aged always under
stand judgment. Therefore I said, Hearken to me ; I also will show my
opinion. Behold, I waited for your words; I gave ear to your reasons,
whilst, ye searched out what to say. And lo! there was no reasoner for
Job, or an answerer of his sayings among you. I, therefore, will answer
also my part, I also will show my opinion.—Book of Job.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT.
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
1871.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY 0. W, RETNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET.
HAYMARKET, W.
�THE TACTICS AND DEFEAT
OF THE
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY.
INCE, my ‘Challenge to the Members of the
Christian Evidence Society ’ was published, the
series of lectures to which the address of Archbishop Thompson was to serve as an introduction
has been given to the world ; and we have now before
us at least an outline of the grounds on which that
which this Society calls the Christian religion is
supposed to stand. The expression may be pardoned
if I say that the attitude assumed by these self-styled
upholders of Christianity is one of the most astonish
ing phenomena in the history of man,—so astonishing
that many have thought, and some have asserted, that
the Christian Evidence Society has never meant any
thing serious by the flourishing of its trumpets, and
that, far from seeking to overthrow its adversaries,
it has sought by its martial music only to cheer and
•encourage its own adherents. This is, of course, an
imputation of conscious dishonesty ; but all that I need
say is that it is for the members of the Society to
repel it, not for me.
But if we look upon these lectures as bond fide
attempts to convince those who are supposed to be
liberals, or sceptics, or infidels (whatever be the name
assigned to them), then, I repeat, the position of these
self-styled Christian advocates is most astounding.
S
�6
The Tactics and Defeat of the
The issue to be met by the Christian Evidence
Society is this. Here is a religion which asserts
that man was created perfectly innocent and good;
that by transgression he fell, and that his fall made
it impossible for the Father to admit man again to
His mercy, except by a redemption of blood; that
all the children of Adam became, further, in conse
quence of their first parent’s sin, children of wrath
and inheritors of a fire in which they should be tor
mented for ever; that, in course of time, after a
revelation supernaturally imparted and supernaturally
attested, the second Person of the triune Godhead
became incarnate in the womb of the Virgin Mary
without the intervention of any earthly father ; that
the child born of Mary was a perfect man, but was
also Almighty God; that the birth of this child was
announced by wise men from the East, and by the
songs of angels in the sky ; that, after escaping the
malice of his enemies, and having repelled the tempta
tions of the evil spirit or devil, he began the work of
his mission, and continued for two or three years
preaching and teaching and doing wonderful works ;
that he calmed the sea, healed the sick, and raised
the dead, announcing at the same time his own
resurrection, which took place about thirty-six hours
after he died on the Cross; that after another interval
of forty days he rose up into heaven from Mount
Olivet, and that a band of angels told his disciples,
as they looked up after his departing form, that as
he had gone, so he would come again, to judge the
quick and the dead.
This outline of the belief of the various bodies of
Christendom may be filled up in various ways, and
be modified by various colours ; but, on the whole, it
will probably be allowed by all to be a correct out
line, and the conclusion at once follows that, although
this belief may contain a philosophy, yet its basis is
asserted to be altogether historical, and to consist of
�Christian Evidence Society,
y
a series of facts or events in the history of the world
as real as the struggle between the Crown and the
Parliament in the reign of Charles the First. It is
obvious that to this scheme of belief the objections
taken may be or rather must be of two kinds. It
may be asserted (1) that the philosophy is false, or
(2) that the facts on which it is stated to rest never
took place. It may be held (1) that the views of the
Divine Nature set forth in this creed are horrifying
and immoral, that they impute the worst injustice to
God, and that the enunciation of them is one of the
greatest calamities that have befallen mankind; or
(2) it may be held that the narratives which are said
to furnish authority for this belief either do not
furnish it, or are untrustworthy as historical docu
ments.
Now, it is perfectly clear that the business of a '
society which professes to treat of Christian Evidences
is to address itself to the establishment of these alleged
historical facts or incidents. It is foolish to raise the
superstructure before the foundation has been safely
laid ; and although the building raised without foun
dations may impose on some, it is plain that the
labour will be thrown away if any reply that their
first concern is to know whether the foundation
exists at all, and that they have no intention of dis
cussing the merits of the philosophy or creed, until
the existence of that foundation has been placed beyond
all doubt. With this issue the introductory address
of Archbishop Thompson had, as I have shown in my
Challenge to the Society,* nothing whatever to do.
His words might have some relevance for those who
have been perplexed or convinced by Positivists, or
Darwinists, or Atheists, whatever these may be ; but
they were utterly wasted for all who say, “ This is
not our present concern: what we want to know is
this, was Jesus conceived without the intervention of
* Challenge, p. 6.
�8
The Tactics and Defeat of the
a human father, or was he not ? Did he actually raise
the widow’s son or Lazarus from the dead, or did he
not ? Had he anything to do with John the Baptist,
or had he not ? Did he keep his Messiahship a secret
from all but two or three, and at the same time did
he preach it publicly, and make it a subject of con
troversy everywhere ? Is the story of his own resur
rection generally credible, and are there good his
torical grounds for the alleged event that at last he
went up in visible tangible form with visible raiment
to a heaven which always stands over the Mount of
Olives ? If these and the thousand other questions of
fact, of mere fact, which we must go on to ask, are
not satisfactorily answered, then the foundation of
which you speak does not exist, and your Christianity
has no authority, and therefore no claim on my accep
tance.”
To speak of a man who puts the matter in this
way and insists that his demands shall be fairly met,
as being necessarily an infidel, is not only mere waste
of breath; it is disingenuous shuffling, and may per
haps deserve a shorter and a harsher name. He may
be an infidel: he may suppose that there is no God, or
that men are descended from monkeys, or that mind
is only a modification of matter, or that men should
worship their grandmothers; but he may also hold
no such views. He may turn round on the self-styled
Christian advocate and say, “ I am a truer Christian
than you are. I have really a Gospel to preach to you
and to all men, the very Gospel which Christ preached.
I believe that all things are the work of an Eternal
Mind or Spirit, to which my mind or spirit stands
in a definite relation. I believe that this Eternal
Mind or Spirit is absolutely just, true, and loving;
and I cling to all the consequences which are involved
in this conviction. I believe that as His Will is to
bring us to our highest good, in other words to bring
our mind into perfect conformity with his Divine
�Christian Evidence Society.
<y
Mind, so also He has the power to do this ; that
this Power and Will are bringing about the perfect
vindication of his justice, and that his justice and
mercy are synonymous terms. I hold that, whatever
be the origin or descent of man, God has never been
absent from any of His creatures; that from the first
dawnings of his sense He has been educating and
training men, by a long process indeed and a painful
one, through the indefinite series of ages until they
have reached their present state, and that He will
continue this work in the long series of ages yet to
come. I believe that because we live in Him now,
we shall continue so to live after we have undergone
the change which we call death ; that the denial of
this cuts at the root of all morality and law, because
it cuts at the root of all love ; for what is the meaning
of growth in the knowledge of God, what is the
meaning of patience, forbearance, truthfulness, un
selfishness, if the wheels of a steam-engine may end
all my concern with them at any moment, or if I may
escape from my duty by throwing myself into the
sea ? I need not go further. I have said enough to
show you that I am not an infidel, and, as I think, to
show you that my faith is vastly higher, and is far
more nearly and really the faith of Christ, than is
yours. If, then, you imply in any part of the dis
cussion which may follow that I am an infidel, or that
I reject your conclusions through moral obliquity,
I shall at once leave you as a person who has placed
himself beyond the courtesies of an impartial judi
cial inquiry. And yet I, who believe what I have
told you that I believe, I who cling far more than
you do to the real teaching of Jesus, have examined
the narratives which profess to relate his life ; and
after the scrutiny of years my deliberate conclusion
is, that, as historical documents, these narratives are
generally untrustworthy, not so much for those por
tions which relate events confessedly extraordinary
�IO
The Tactics and Defeat of the
or supernatural, as for those portions which relate
the most ordinary matters. I need not weary my
self by going afresh through a history which has
been carefully analysed already; I content myself
with saying that I have read all your lectures or
essays, and a hundred other books which say much
what you have said, and that I have found in them
nothing which answers the questions put in the
‘ English Life of Jesus,’ nothing which even tends to
prove that the contrary of the conclusions reached by
the writer or writers of that work are tenable, nothing
which meets the objections to which Dean Alford
was challenged to reply in the pamphlets entitled
‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ nothing which faces
the issue put forward later in the ‘ Challenge to the
Members of the Christian Evidence Society ; ’ and I
insist now that you shall meet these objections and
answer these questions, or confess your inability to
meet and answer them. If (to use words which you
may already have heard) you refuse to answer or
keep silence, I shall take your refusal or your silence
as an acknowledgment of defeat, and shall be justified
in publishing it as such to the world.”
If the members of the Christian Evidence Society
have any honesty or sense of fairness and truth, it
will be impossible for them to deny that their duty is
to address themselves to men who speak as I have
made my imaginary inquirer speak in the foregoing
sentences. What they have to show is, that the
narrative of the visit of the wise men, for instance,
is consistent with that of the purification of Mary
and the circumcision of Jesus in the temple ; that the
Gospels which say that during his whole ministry
only two or three were made aware of his Messiahship
may be reconciled with the other Gospel, in which his
character is known to the disciples before they receive
their call to be apostles, is declared everywhere, and
made the subject of repeated and vehement contro
�Christian Evidence Society.
11
versy in the most public places o£ Jerusalem; that
the narrative which relates the incidents following
the crucifixion is as free from difficulties, inconsisten
cies, and contradictions as a narrative of great events
must be before it can be accepted by an honest judge
and an impartial jury in a court of justice. In short,
to go through the whole subject, refuting at every
step the conclusions set forth, after examination of the
evidence in each case, in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’
without the least reference to the truth or the
falsehood of any form of philosophy or belief, includ
ing among these all the forms of Christian faith or
opinion—this, and nothing less than this, is the work
of the Christian Evidence Society, if they really
think that their belief has any historical foundation
at all—if they really allow, as Archbishop Thompson
has allowed, that these alleged facts, which constitute
the foundation of their belief, are not to be taken for
granted, but are to be proved by evidence such as
would satisfy honest men approaching the subject
without prejudice or prepossession, or any secondary
motives whatsoever.
The lectures which have followed Archbishop
Thompson’s introductory essay abundantly show
what, in point of fact, we have to expect from these
so-called defenders of the faith. The writers of these
papers have handled, after their sort, topics of various
kinds. We have essays on materialistic theories,
on science and revelation, on Positivism and Pan
theism ; but all these may at once be swept aside.
Eor the present we have nothing to do with Comte,
or Darwin, or Huxley, or any of their theories, argu
ments, or conclusions. The only question which we
have to ask relates to the facts on which the Chris
tianity of the Christian Evidence Society is supposed
to rest; and that question may be put in four words,
Are these things so ?
Among these lectures, three only seem by their
�12
The Tactics and Defeat of the
titles likely to treat this question. We might have
supposed that Dr Stoughton’s paper on Miracles
wcfuld have gone, seriatim, through all the miracles
related in the New Testament, showing that each
really is an historical incident, just as an English
historian would examine the question whether the
Cowrie conspiracy was really planned by the earl and
his brother, or whether it was or was not a vile plot
on the part of James VI. to kill and take possession,
and murder the memories as well as the bodies of his
victims. Instead of this, as we turn over Dr Stough
ton’s pages, we find ourselves rambling in the old
labyrinth of arguments which are to show that
miracles were to be expected, and that in the ministry
of Jesus they are not to be overvalued or under
valued. All this has been repeated again and again ;
but if we look for any evidence which is to justify
our acceptance of the narrative of the miracle at
Cana, we shall look for it in vain.
The case remains unaltered when we turn to Dr
Harold Browne’s paper on “ Christ’s Teaching and
Influence on the World.” We have here some refer
ences to supposed facts, but they are mere references,
and no more. Bishop Browne has painted what he
supposes to be an historical picture; but as he simply
assumes the general trustworthiness of the Gospel
narratives, his paper, also, must be set aside, as fail
ing to meet the real point at issue. It is obvious
that his remarks have no force for those who will
say that their estimate of the influence of Christ on
the world is not altogether that of Bishop Browne ;
and that, even if it were, this would not help us to
determine whether the Sanhedrim placed a guard of
Boman soldiers at the grave of Jesus, and after
wards bribed them to tell Pilate a lie, or whether
they did not.
There remains only Mr Cook’s paper on “ The Com
pleteness and Adequacy of the Evidences of Chris
�Christian Evidence Society.
13
tianity.” The title certainly seems to show that the
editor of the “ Speaker’s Commentary ” understands
the real work of the Society, and that he is prepared
honestly to do that work. Let us see how he sets
about it.
I am compelled to quote from my “ Challenge to
the Society,” and here as there, I insist that from the
only question to which I have to demand an answer,
“ that which is called external evidence to the truth
of the Gospels is altogether excluded. I have
nothing to do with the testimony of Clement, or
Justin, or Tertullian, or Origen, or Jerome, or Augus
tine, or any other patristic writer whatsoever—with
the truth of the teaching of Jesus, or the high charac
ter of his Apostles. No external evidence can impart
authority or weight to narratives which are, in them
selves, incredible, or self-contradictory, or mutually
destructive; and I have the right to insist that they
who consider themselves my opponents, will make no
attempt to divert the controversy to this utterly
irrelevant issue.” *
The whole series of tracts put forth by the Society
makes it abundantly clear that they mean steadily to
confine themselves to this issue, and to ignore every
other. At starling, Mr Cook takes refuge under
the wing of the great men whose writings are sup
posed to uphold Christianity, in his acceptation of the
word. He refers us to the long series of writers
stretching from the earliest centuries to Grotius and
Leibnitz, to Luthardt, Steinmeyer, and Delitsch;
but even this he cannot do without using expressions
which come with a bad grace from one who is sup
posed to be speaking as an impartial examiner of evi
dence. England, we are told, holds a place among
the foremost champions of the cross. He rejoices to
think that, “ at this present hour, men sound in the
faith, full of the love and light of Christ, are bringing
* Challenge, p. 12.
�14
The Tactics and Defeat of the
the resources of profound learning and vigorous
intellect to bear upon the chaotic turmoil of antiChristian influences. Within this present year several
works have reached me in which infidelity is con
fronted, both in the sphere of general cultivation, and
in the abstrusest fastnesses of philosophy.” * Is this
the language of a man who approaches his task with
out prejudices, prepossessions, or secondary motives ?
What does he mean by the word infidelity, and by
what right does he employ, without definition, an
ambiguous term ? Would not a really truthful and
honest man say, “ I have to show you that Chris
tianity rests on a basis of historical events; and,
until I have shown you that the miracle at Gadara,
or the confusion of the Roman soldiers at the moment
of the resurrection, took place as certainly as the
battle of Hastings, or the discomfiture of the Gun
powder Plotters in the vaults of Westminster, I have
no right to speak of myself as orthodox, or of others
as infidels ; I have no right even to imply that the
teaching of Christ was better than that of all other
men, or even that it is true. I have first to prove
that the Magi came to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and
that, while Joseph and Mary were carrying the infant
Jesus straight from Bethlehem into Egypt, they also
spent a considerable time at Jerusalem; I have to
show that Peter first learnt the Messiahship of Jesus
by Divine revelation towards the close of his ministry,
and, also, that he was distinctly made aware of the
fact before he received his call to become one of the
Apostles ; I have to show that Judas really was dead,
or had fallen from his apostleship, when St Paul
declares that Jesus was seen of the twelve in the
interval between his resurrection and ascension.
When I have ’proved all this, I may then breathe
freely as having practically got through my task.
Until I have done this, I cannot apply to my own
* See Mr Cook's Essay, p. 3.
�Christian Evidence Society.
15
faith or religion a single epithet which is to imply its
superiority to any other religion whatsoever, unless I
openly abandon my historical position, and compare
these systems of belief on their own merits as such.”
Nevertheless, having spoken of men sound in the
faith as doing battle with infidels (that is, with those
who venture to think that Jesus cannot have been in
Jerusalem and in Egypt, in Cana and in the desert
with the devil, at one and the same time), Mr Cook
goes on to say that his purpose is “ to show that
those evidences of Christianity which are accessible
to every careful inquirer are complete and adequate.”*
We are naturally tempted to stop at these words, and
to say that this is the very thing we want, and that
now we may hope to learn how Jesus could have
been seen after the resurrection and before the
ascension by the twelve Apostles, when, at that
moment, there were only eleven Apostles living. We
are tempted, at least, to suppose that an effort will
be made to meet some one or more of such historical
difficulties. But, as we go on with the rest of the
sentence, we are made aware that Mr Cook’s evidence
is not at all of this sort, and therefore is not intended
to dispel any such perplexities. His evidences are
complete, inasmuch as they meet “ the fair require
ments of our moral and rational naturethey are
adequate “ with reference to their purpose, which is
not to teach the truth, but to bring us into contact
with the central and fundamental truths of our reli
gion, and with the Person of its Bounder.” It is
well to be candid: it is also a good thing to be clear.
If Mr Cook had said that his evidence was not to
teach us the truth of facts, he would have, at the
least, deserved the credit of perspicuity, although he
might by so speaking have put himself in a difficult
position in a discussion with a Mahometan or a
Brahman • for the Brahman might say, “ What force
* Essay, p. 4.
�16
The Tactics and Defeat of the
can your words have for me, when I can use pre
cisely the same words to those who doubt about the
truth of my creed ? If any one imparts to me his
doubts whether Agni has three tongues, or whether
Vishnu was really incarnate seven times, or whether
Indra really killed Ahi, I can tell him quite as easily
as you can, that the evidence which I have to lay
before him is not to teach him the truth, but to bring
him into contact with the central and fundamental
truths of our religion,—these truths being the good
ness, and justice, and long-suffering, and mercy, and
love of the One Being, whose perfections are variously
but feebly set forth under the names of Brahma, or
Vishnu, or Prajapati, or Krishna.”
Having thus declared the nature of Christian evi
dence, Mr Cook goes on to say that persons who meet
to consider the evidences of revealed religion may be
supposed to have “ previously satisfied themselves of
the existence and personality of God,” and that
“ materialism under any form, and Christianity in any
stage, are mutually exclusive.” But what is the use
of saying this when the question is confined simply
to the reality of certain alleged historical facts ?
What object can Mr Cook have in saying “ we can
only argue now with those who admit the possibility
of a revelation,” unless he defines first what he means
by revelation ? What will he say to a man who
replies, “ Certainly I believe not merely in the possi
bility of a revelation, but in the fact of one; but
perhaps I carryback this revelation somewhat further
than you do, for I am disposed to say, with Max
Muller, that ‘ it was an event in the history of man
when the ideas of father, mother, brother, sister, hus
band, wife, were first conceived and first uttered. . .
It was a revelation, the greatest of all revelations,
when the conception of a Creator, a Ruler, a Father
of man, when the name of God was for the first time
uttered in this world.’ ”
�17
Christian Evidence Society.
What will Mr Cook say if such a man should add,
“ The history of human speech, seems to show that
language for a long series of ages expressed nothing
but the merest sensuous conceptions ; but the idea of
a Creator, a Ruler, a Father of all men is not a sen
suous conception : hence a long series of ages had
passed before men came to form this idea and to
express it. If the history of language be read truly,
this is a plain historical fact; how am I to reconcile
this with what you tell me, that the very first man
spoke face to face with God, and hid himself from his
sight in the bushes of the garden of Eden ?”
The truth is that Mr Cook is not at ease unless he
is dealing with what he calls “ broad facts,” in other
words, with facts, or supposed facts, of which he can
speak in sufficiently vague terms.
“ Here is one fact,” he tells us, “ that at the central
point of the w'orld’s history, central both in time and
in historical import, equidistant from the end of what
men are agreed to call the pre-historic period, and our
own time, the man Jesus arose and claimed to be, in
a sense altogether apart from other men, the Teacher
and the' Saviour of the world. He claimed a direct
mission from God,—nay, more, to be, in a sense to be
hereafter ascertained, the Son of God. He assumed
that the truth which he had to teach was new, inas
much as it was one which man could not discover
for himself, but, at the same time, one to which man’s
conscience would bear testimony, which could not.
therefore, be rejected without sin. As credentials of
his mission, He appealed to works which those who
accepted him, and those who opposed him, admitted
could not be wrought without supernatural aid. To
one work, as the crowning work of all, he directed
his followers to appeal, as one capable of being at
tested and incapable of being explained away, even
His own resurrection from the dead.”*
* Essay, p. 6.
B
�18
The Tactics and Defeat of the
Before telling us of this very broad fact, Mr Cook
bids us put ourselves, “ if possible, in the position of
an inquirer to whom the facts might be new, and who
had simply to satisfy himself as to their bearings upon
his own convictions and the state of man.”
I will say, in reply to these words, that this has
already been attempted by the writer of ‘ Commenta
tors and Hierophants,’ who cites a sufficiently dispassionate inquirer to judge of certain narratives
written by men whom Dean Alford styled inspired,—
that is, moved by a Divine influence “ specially raising
them to, and enabling them for, their work in a man
ner which distinguishes them from all other writers
in the world, and their work from all other works.”*
Wearisome though it may be to go over the same
ground again and again, the cognate assumptions of
Dean Alford and Canon Cook at once justify and
compel me to quote the words in which the writer of
‘ Commentators and Hierophants ’ represents Thucy
dides as replying to the demands of Dr Alford : “I
really do not know what to say to this. If you ask
me to accept this proposition as a preliminary to the
examination of these books, you ask me to abandon
my judgment as an historian, and, in fact, bind me
beforehand to a particular conclusion. If I accept
this hypothesis before examining these books, I pledge
myself to examine them with a particular view, and
with one special purpose; in other words, I agree to
do a dishonest thing.”
We are as little justified in assuming Mr Cook’s
“ broad fact,” as in assuming, with Dean Alford, the
inspiration of the Evangelists. But when we come
to look into the sentence last quoted from Mr Cook’s
essay, what do we find but a string of assertions,
almost every one of which are at least open to dis
pute on the mere score of facts ? If by pre-historic
period, Mr Cook means a period preceding the rise
* ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ Part I., p. 9.
�Christian Evidence Society.
19
of contemporary chroniclers or historians, by what
right does Mr Cook extend the series of contemporary
annalists as far back as nearly nineteen hundred
years before the birth of Christ ? By what right
again does he insist that Jesus asserted the novelty
of the truth which he had to teach ? Granting for
a moment that the four Gospels are authentic and
trustworthy, I may ask, where does Jesus assume
this ? where does he say anything like it, except in
the passages of the fourth Gospel in which he speaks
of giving his disciples a commandment, which was both
new and old ? If we may take the hint given in these
passages, we may perhaps go far towards account
ing for the impression which his teaching produced
upon his hearers. It was the return to simple maxims
and truths (long ago known) from the stifling atmo
sphere of rabbinical tradition, which made the multi
tude rejoice that they had found a teacher who taught
them as one having authority, and not as the scribes.
What again was the truth which man was not able to
discover for himself ? If Mr Cook is speaking of the
Sermon on the Mount, it would be hard to say what
portion of it was absolutely new. The whole passage
about the straight and rough way of life, and the
broad road to destruction, appears with scarcely
any change in the Works and Days assigned to
Hesiod. If Jesus speaks of the hairs of men’s heads
as being all numbered, there are Vedic hymns which
tell us that the winkings of men’s eyes are all
numbered by Varuna. If Mr Cook asserts that, as
credentials to his mission, Jesus appealed to his
miracles, the very point which we wish to ascertain is
whether he did so or not. If he did, it would be an
important fact by all means to be noted; but we can
not take the fact for granted on Mr Cook’s authority,
or forget the evidence which seems to point in
another direction.
“ It is noteworthy,” says the writer of the 1 English
�20
The Tactics and Defeat of the
Life of Jesus,’ “that after witnessing or hearing of
many of his miracles, the Pharisees still demand of
him a sign. How they could refuse this character to
the events just witnessed it is hard to imagine; hence
we seem almost justified in doubting whether they had
witnessed them, and if we say that they asked for a
sign only because they had not seen any of his mighty
works, then it is singular that they should have been
strangers to events which were happening constantly
in the eyes of all the people.” *
I am well aware that in saying even this much I
am giving Mr Cook an advantage which I ought not
to give him. The question turns not on the disposi
tion of the Pharisees, but on the authenticity and
credibility of the Gospel narratives, and with reference
to this point too much stress cannot be laid on the
argument urged in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ that
the contradictions in the narratives of the early years
of Jesus, and of his relations with the Baptist, belong
to the commonest matters of fact. “ Either the Bap
tist knew Jesus from his infancy, or he did not.
After the baptism, he either knew Jesus to be the
Eternal Logos, or he did not. Either Peter was
summoned by Andrew distinctly to find in Jesus the
Messiah, or he was not. Either Jesus drove out the
traffickers from the temple at the beginning of his
ministry, or he did not. Either a few days after his
baptism he was at a marriage feast in Galilee, or
he was not. On all these, as on many other points,
the Gospel narratives completely contradict each other
and themselves. The inevitable conclusion is that
the most ordinary matters of fact the Evangelists are not
trustworthy historians, and could not have been eye
witnesses of the events which they relate. But their
accounts are not confined to matters which fall
'within the ordinary range of human experience. They
abound in incidents which are astounding or incon* English Life of Jesus,’ Part IV., p. 41.
�Christian Evidence Society.
21
ceivable, and which run counter to all impressions
derived from an observation of natural phenomena.
At once, therefore, and before examining any of these
narratives, we are bound distinctly to affirm that, whether
•as witnesses or as historians of such alleged events, the
Evangelists are utterly unworthy of credit.
are
not called upon to show how these narratives came
into existence, although explanations apparently ade
quate may not be wanting ; we need not to concern
ourselves with theories of absolute or relative miracle.
. . . The fact that the Gospels are unhistorical in
common things, renders an examination of alleged
miraculous narratives a work of supererogation.'” *
Amongst these miraculous narratives so discredited
is that of the resurrection of Jesus; but by what
right does Mr Cook, if he cares to place himself in the
position of a dispassionate historical inquirer, speak
of this resurrection as the crowning work of all, or
assert that Jesus charged his disciples to appeal to
it ? Far from appealing to this as a crowning
miracle, Jesus, it seems more likely, never professed
to be a worker of miracle at all. The argument cuts
both ways. If the resurrection of Jesus was the
crowning miracle, then it would seem that there were
■other miracles of a like kind of which it was the crown.
In the narrative of the Acts, as the writer of the
‘ English Life of Jesus ’ remarks, no reference is made
to any miracles as wrought by Jesus except those of
healing, the arguments being based entirely on the
resurrection as an event beyond all conception un
expected and astonishing. But if they had been
accustomed to frequent raisings of the dead, if they
had sat at meat with one who had been dead in the
grave four days, how could the resurrection of Jesus
be in any way astonishing, even if it had been unex
pected ?
But, again, did Jesus speak to his disciples, before
* ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ Part IV., p. 40.
�11
The Tactics and Defeat of the
his suffering, either of the mode of his death or of
his resurrection ? The arguments against any such
supposition are given in detail in the fifth part of
the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’ and I content myself with
saying that nothing said by Mr Cook even tends toshake any one of them.
The path of assumption once taken, it is as easy to
walk in it as on the smooth broad road which leads,
to ruin. As professing to work miracles (of which
we have no conclusive evidence), Jesus is represented
as differing from Mahomet, although the story of thenight journey to Jerusalem is found in the Koran ;
and great stress is laid on the supposed fact that he
was expected. We are here going off into the alleged
external evidence, which I have already said that we
are bound to cast aside altogether, if the narratives
said to be thus attested are in themselves inconsistent,
or irreconcilable. We have nothing to do with
drawing pictures like that which graces the opening
pages of ‘ Ecce Homo; ’ but the assumption is not
less enormous when we read that his person, his
offices, his work, were foretold, and that when he did
begin to teach and work, his countrymen were familiar with a long series of texts, beginning with the first,,
and continued to the end, of those sacred books in
which they recognised descriptions of such a teacher.
This is a mere assertion ; the evidence contradicting
it is given in the ‘English Life of Jesus;’ but apart
from this, no more cogent evidence for the non
existence of this description, or at least for their
failure to recognise it, can be found than in the fact
that all the rulers of the people know nothing of such
descriptions. There is, in fact, no evidence whatever
that any such Messiah as Jesus was expected at all.
Nor is it less an ignoratio elenchi, as logicians
say, when Mr Cook goes on to draw a contrast
between the teaching of Jesus and that of any other
man, on the ground that faith in him took root, whiles
�Christian Evidence Society.
23
(it would seem to be implied) faith in all others has
died away. In the first place, facts seem scarcely to
bear out the statement. It may be very well for
Englishmen to say that Christianity is co-extensive
with the civilisation of the world, or that “beyond
the pale of Christendom the great mass of humanity,
which in past ages have shown equal capacities for
the highest culture, have at this present time no single
representative nation, Turanian, Semitic, or Aryan, in
which liberty, philosophy, nay even physical science^
with its serene indifference to moral or spiritual truth,
have a settled home or practical development.”* If
we choose to assert this, or to say that through the vast
regions of Islamism, Buddhism, and Confucianism,
elements of civilisation, although present, “ are stunted,
distorted, and, to all human ken, in hopeless and
chaotic ruin,” that is our opinion, an opinion not
shared by the inhabitants of China or Japan. But
whether the opinion be right or not, it does not touch
the point at issue. Long before the Christian era, the
western portion of the Aryan race had begun to show
a capacity for development indefinitely beyond that
of the Eastern Aryans, or of any branch of the Semitic
or Turanian families. Nor can it be denied that in
their law, their institutions, their modes of thought
and habits of life, they exhibit to this day more than
mere traces of a condition far more ancient than the
rise of Christianity. But, in truth, this discussion is
utterly irrelevant. The teaching of Jesus may have
been indefinitely higher than that which it is repre
sented to have been in the Gospels : it might not
only have taken root, nay it might absolutely have
conquered the world: and yet this victory would
impart not a jot more of historical authority to the
Gospel narratives, unless these narratives were
possessed of historical authority already. If the whole
world were Christian, and if there were no divisions
* Essay, p. 10.
�24
The Tactics and Defeat of the
among Christians, no anathematisation of particular
forms of Christianity, how would this prove that
Jesus kept his Messiahship secret, as he is said to
have done in the Synoptic story, or that he made
it a subject of constant public controversy, as he is
said to have done according to the Johannine narra
tive ? The reference to the subsequent history of
Christianity is altogether out of place, and carries with
it no force whatever, and we are conceding too much
to Mr Cook by noticing the matter at all.
In truth, this indulgence in irrelevant remarks
would be either ludicrous or contemptible, were the
subject less serious and important. But the patience
of unprejudiced thinkers must reach a low ebb, as
they follow Mr Cook through some more of what
he is pleased to term his facts, “ such as the pre
eminence in Christendom, in every age, of nations
which profess at least to acknowledge Him as their
Lord, and as the rapid disintegration and decay of
communities which have corrupted or abjured his
faith.”* This is indeed a dainty dish to set before
honest and unprejudiced men. The first part of the
sentence resolves itself into the proposition that mere
profession of belief in Christ is sufficient to secure pre
eminence for a nation; but it was scarcely necessary
to add that the pre-eminence must be in Christendom,
for a nation professing not to believe in Him would
by its own act shut itself out from that society. On
the other hand, it is perfectly clear that a mere pro
fession of Christianity is equivalent to a corruption
or even an abjuration of it; hence, in the second part
of the sentence, the communities which have been
said by mere profession to have secured pre-eminence
are said to undergo rapid disintegration and decay.
This, of course, cannot be Mr Cook’s meaning ; what
he probably means is that the Church of Rome or the
Greek Church has corrupted Christianity, and that
* Essay, p. 11.
�Christian Evidence Society.
o.$
therefore nations professing the Orthodox or Latin
faith are less flourishing and powerful than nations
which profess Protestantism. Certainly here we
have a plain issue of fact, or rather perhaps a hun
dred issues ; and it may fairly be doubted whether
we shall have done ourselves any good, even if we
should succeed in completely unravelling the tangled
knot. Certainly our success will not have carried us
on much nearer towards determining whether the
stories told about the Sanhedrim after the crucifixion
of Jesus be or be not true. But a few words may not
be wasted in showing the kind of thing which Mr
Cook would pass off as factors in the great aggregate
of “ Christian Evidences.” Whether the nations still
belonging professedly to the Latin Communion are
weak, or weaker than Protestant nations, and whether
if they are weak, their weakness is really due to this
cause and to this cause only, are points on which dis
passionate critics would probably decline to pronounce
any definite opinion : the glibness with which Mr
Cook lays down his proposition is in singular con
trast with the cautious method in which Macaulay, in
his essay on ‘ Ranke’s History of the Popes,’ handles
sundry cognate problems. After all, what are we
that we should make ourselves judges ? If the
power of the Sultan is waning away because he
refuses to subscribe to the Nicene Creed, it is hard
to be rebuked for saying that the men on whom the
tower in Siloam fell were sinners above all others
that dwelt at Jerusalem.
To speak briefly, Mr Cook has manufactured his his
tory, and then proceeded complacently to assert that
“ the broadest and simplest facts thus stated are suffi
cient for the one purpose we have now in view, suffi
cient to induce every one who cares to know the truth,
to go at once to that Man, to ask what he has to
teach, what he has to bestow.” Why an inaccurate
�0.6
The Tactics and Defeat of the
or garbled history should be a good or a sufficient
preparation for going to Him, it is not easy to see ;
but what will Mr Cook say if we reply, that this is
precisely what we wish to do, that we do wish to ask
what he has to teach and to bestow ? Did he then
affirm from the first to his Apostles, to the Samaritan
woman and her fellow-inhabitants of Sychar, and to
the assembled multitudes at the great feasts, that he
was the Messiah and the Logos, existing before all
worlds, or did he keep this a secret from all except
two or three during the whole of his ministry ? Did
he speak as he is said to have spoken in the Synoptics,
or as he is said to have spoken in the Johannine
Gospel ? Are these questions to be solved by a refer
ence to the condition of France at the present time
as contrasted with the condition of Germany or of
England ? The fact is that if we wish to know what
Jesus taught or bestowed, and if we are ever to learn
it, we must travel by the road of strict historical
inquiry, and take one by one the whole mass of
questions examined in the ‘ English Life of Jesus,’—
questions which I challenge Mr Cook and all the
members of the Christian Evidence Society to answer.
But Mr Cook’s efforts to divert us from the real
points at issue are not yet ended. He next finds it
convenient to make a thorough confusion between
the genuineness and authenticity of any given docu
ment, and, under cover of this confusion, to insinuate
that it is useless to question the orthodox position
about the several books of the New Testament. We
had supposed that the authenticity of a history de
pended on the truth of the incidents related in the
narrative, and that any honest man would be able and
ought to judge for himself whether the book contains
palpable inconsistencies, contradictions, or falsehoods.
We had thought that, if a record were forthcoming of
the Peloponnesian war which asserted that Pericles
strenuously urged the Athenians to concentrate all
�Christian Evidence Society.
27
their efforts on the extension of their dominion,* any
honest man ought to see and to say that this record
was in utter contradiction with the history of Thucy
dides, and that therefore, while both narratives could
not possibly be true, it was yet possible that both
might be false. It is one of the ugliest tricks of
sacerdotalism to throttle the intellect by denying it
liberty of investigating simple matters of fact. Boys
are not told that it is such an awfully serious and difficult matter to decide whether the alleged history of
Romulus or Numa is to be accepted or rejected. But
Mr Cook wishes to frighten us from examining into
the authority of the Johannine Gospel, and. he sets
about it thus :
“ An investigation into the authenticity of any an
cient book demands anamountof knowledgeandcritical
ability, a soundness and keenness of judgment, which
are the very rarest of qualifications. Turn to secular
literature, and you will find critics arguing for ages,
without any approximation to a settlement, touching
the genuineness of works attributed to men whoso
peculiarities of genius and of style would seem to
defy imitation. Who would venture, on his own
judgment, to determine how much of the Homeric
poems really belongs to
“ ‘That lord of loftiest song,
Who above others like an eagle soars ? ’ ”
I deny Mr Cook’s statements, and I say that they
are denied by the vast majority of scholars and critics.
If these are not to accept or reject any given opinion
about the Homeric poems on their own judgment, on
whose judgment are they to do so ? To state the
matter thus is either childish or impertinent. Mr
Cook is perfectly well aware that a vast number of
scholars deny that there ever was one individual
Homer, the author of the ‘ Iliad ’ or the ‘ Odyssey ’ ;
* ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ Part I., p. 11.
�18
The Tactics and Defeat of the
but even if we suppose that it were universally allowed
that one man dictated the ‘ Iliad,’ standing on one
leg, at the rate of two hundred lines per hour, how
wrould this help us to determine whether the history
of the Trojan war (if ever there was any Trojan war)
was after the fashion described in the ‘ Iliad,’ or as
it is represented by Thucydides in the introduction to
his history ? Having thus made the gateway terrible,
Mr Cook is good enough to say that they who will
not go in blindfold at his bidding, refuse because they
hate the idea of accepting documents “ which, if
genuine, supply substantial grounds for belief in super
natural works and a supernatural Person.”
Mr Cook’s facts are again wrong. The opponents
whom he is professing to throw down may believe
far more earnestly than himself in the righteousness
and love of the Being in whom all creatures live and
move; and it is impossible that they can have any
disinclination, a priori, to give credit to books which
tell the truth about Him, or about His works. But
Mr Cook has again dragged us away to wholly irre
levant matters. Let us grant to him the genuine
ness of all the books of the New Testament: let us
admit that the fourth Gospel was written by one who
was a personal friend of Jesus : let us allow it to be,
as Dr Tischendorf asserts, “ transparently clear that
our collective Gospels are to be referred back, at
least, to the beginning of the second century, or the
end of the first.” Let us concede that the small
interval still left of sixty or seventy years from the
time at which the events of the history are said to
have taken place, is of no real importance ; and what
follows? In the words of the writer of the ‘ Eng
lish Life of Jesus,’ simply this :
“ Not a single inconsistency is softened, not a single
contradiction is removed, not one impossible thing
rendered credible. What is done is to show that,
�Christian Evidence Society,
ig
within some twenty years after the death of Jesus,
men were to be found who had been his followers and
intimate friends, capable of writing down narratives
which profess to give the same history, but which
relate histories as different as the histories of Portugal
and England—men who could represent the teaching
of Jesus as being at the same time parabolic and not
parabolic, simple and confusing, soothing and exas
perating—men who could say that he kept his
Messiahship secret till down almost to the eve of the
crucifixion, and that he proclaimed it aloud from the
first to friends and enemies alike. . . . What it
does is to prove that the Evangelists were wilfully
and consciously dishonest; and that, as writers, they
are deserving of the severest censure for deliberately
deceiving their readers about events of which they
profess themselves eye-witnesses.” *
At this point we may very fairly stop. In the sub
sequent portion of his essay, Mr Cook occupies him
self chiefly with frank declarations of his own
opinions, and with efforts to convince his readers
that, if they will but think as he does about the
Person of Jesus and his character, they will feel
perfectly satisfied about the authority of the Gospels—
in other words, will be quite ready to believe that Jesus
was in Jerusalem and in Egypt at one and the same
time. By the same indirect (some might be tempted
to say almost sneaking) method, Mr Cook seeks to
convince his disciples that the Gospels contain the
whole scheme of the Athanasian doctrine of the rela
tion of Christ to God the Eather and God the Holy
Ghost. .All that I have to say here is that I am not
now concerned with this doctrine. It may be true or
it may be false ; but I must first have an answer to
all those questions which have been put to Dean Alford
in ‘ Commentators and Hierophants,’ and then I
* ‘English Life of Jesus,’ Part VI., p. 68.
�30
The Tactics and Defeat of the
must have a refutation of the whole ‘ English Life of
Jesus,’ before I can admit that we are justified in even
entering on any examination of Athanasian doctrine.
But, after all, after frightening his readers with the
awful difficulties of Biblical criticism and the fearful
responsibility involved in saying that the fourth
Gospel was not written by the son of Zebedee, Mr
Cook, when the convenient moment comes, turns round
and says to them, “ You have to judge for yourselves.
I do not profess to draw out the evidence, but simply
to show what is its nature and where it is to be
found.” * It is true that he is speaking here of the
evidence for the character of Christ; but this evidence
can exist only in the measure in which the books are
trustworthy, and thus we are brought again within
the circle of historical inquiry. But here, also, we
have the same confusions and contradictions. This
evidence, he says, will have weight with them in
proportion to their “ capacity to discern and appre
ciate moral goodness. If that character does not
attract, subdue, and win you, I freely admit all other
evidence will be useless so far as your innermost con
victions are concerned.” We might ask—useless or
useful for what ? The latent proposition would seem
to be that they who do not regard the Gospels as
trustworthy historical narratives, have no capacity to
discern and appreciate moral goodness. But Mr
Cook goes on immediately to say that, “ numerous as
are the cases of individuals who have remained in, or
relapsed into, a state of scepticism from various
causes, intellectual or moral, few, indeed, are the cases
of men who have not borne with them into that
dreary region an abiding sense of the personal and
supreme goodness of Jesus.” This is only saying, in
other words, that they retain their capacity for dis
cerning and appreciating moral goodness—in short,
* Essay, p. 20.
�Christian Evidence Society.
31
that they are none the worse in this respect for hold
ing that Jesus never uttered the discourses put into
his mouth in the fourth Gospel.
Then, having allowed that almost all sceptics retain
an abiding sense of the personal and supreme good
ness of Jesus, (if this were said of the orthodox, Mr
Cook would say that nothing more was needed,) he
goes onto say, “ You will soon find that you have no
alternative but either to give up all that has wrought
itself into your moral nature, and entwined itself
around the fibres of your affections, all your con
victions of the moral excellence of Jesus, or to accept
Him, even as He presents Himself, the God-Man.”*
I need only say that, by Mr Cook’s own admission,
most of those who refuse to do this, still retain an
abiding sense of the personal and supreme goodness
of Jesus, and what would he have more ? The
Christian is told that his duty is to rejoice with them
that are glad, and to weep with them that weep. Mr
Cook’s notion of the extent of Christian sympathy
is wider. He would have us see only what he sees
and when he sees it, and to shut our eyes when he
tells us that an object staring us in the face has no
existence.
It is not worth while to follow further the series of
evasive or inadequate arguments with which Mr Cook
seeks to hoodwink his hearers and himself. He chal
lenges any controversialist to deny that our Lord’s
teaching differed from that of all the Rabbis, not
merely in degree, but in kind, and he adds that “ it
differed in principle, in its processes, in its results, in
its tone, its spirit, in every essential characteristic.” f
Certainly I have no intention of denying this, but I
maintain fearlessly that these words apply with equal
force to the teaching of the two Isaiahs, of Ezekiel,
or of Jeremiah, to the teaching, in short, of all who
proclaimed a religion of the heart, and kicked against
* Essay, p. 22.
t Essay, p. 32.
�32
The Tactics and Defeat of the
the tyranny of sacerdotalism. The teaching of Jesus
did not differ in kind from the teaching of the Pro
phets, as is set forth, doubtless to Mr Cook’s perfect
satisfaction, more largely in the seventh of the Thirtynine Articles of the Church of England.
Nor is it much more worth while to note that Mr
Cook makes Christianity depend altogether on the
physical resurrection of the body of Jesus after his
death upon the cross. If this were all, I should pass
it by as an opinion or belief which he is perfectly free
to hold. But the case is altered when he asserts that
this event is attested under circumstances which make
it impossible to doubt the sincerity of those who are
said to have witnessed it. “ That the attestation was
given, that it was confirmed by outward effects other
wise psychologically impossible, by an immediate and
complete change in the character of the disciples, and
by the rapid triumph of the religion so attested, these
and kindred points you will find discussed in every
treatise on Christian evidence; they are, in fact, not
open to reasonable doubt.”*
If these words are designedly addressed to those
who have already made up their minds to believe
what Mr Cook believes, and who hate the very thought
of having to look at the other side, I should pass
them by without comment. If they are addressed to
honest and unprejudiced men, who wish only to ascer
tain the truth of facts, they are, (whatever may have
been the author’s intention in writing them,) a string
of lies. Let it be granted for a moment that the
physical resurrection did take place. It none the less
remains a fact that all the narratives of the resurrec
tion are inconsistent, contradictory, or mutually ex
clusive, and therefore that, in the words of the writer
of the 'English Life of Jesus,’ for the historic,al
resurrection we have no evidence whatever.!- Mr
Cook makes a simple assertion, apparently in the
* Essay, p. 39.
t Part VI., p. 39.
�Christian Evidence Society.
33
teeth of all the facts : the writer of the ‘ English Life
of Jesus’ goes patiently through all the narratives,
and the reader may satisfy himself at every step
whether the story is fairly or unfairly dealt with.
With greater truth it might be asserted that few
narratives could be found anywhere which convict
themselves more completely than the Gospel narra
tives of the resurrection.*
* Mr Cook deals in assertions and assumptions. I have asserted
that the writer of ‘The English Life of Jesus ’ has examined the whole
narrative in all its incidents. But it may be well that the reader should
again see with his own eyes what these inconsistencies are : “ The nar
ratives of the Resurrection exhibit, if possible, even greater inconsis
tencies and contradictions than those which have preceded them. In
Matthew (xxviii. 1, &c.) we read that Mary Magdalene and the other
Mary (i.e., two women) came to the sepulchre, as the day began to dawn;
that there was an earthquake, and that the angel (one angel) of the
Lord came down, and, rolling away the stone from the door of the
sepulchre, sat upon it, and, bidding the women not to be afraid, told
them that Jesus was risen, and that his disciples should see him in
Galilee, whither he had preceded them; that as they depart on this
errand, Jesus himself appears to them, and tells them just what the
angel had said to them a few minutes before, thus making the appari
tion and message of the angel quite superfluous. In Mark (xvi.) three
women, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome,
come to the sepulchre, for the purpose of anointing the body of Jesus,
after the sun had risen. As in Matthew, they are at a loss to know how
they shall remove the stone from the door ; but when they reach the
spot, instead of seeing an angel sitting on the stone, they simply see it
rolled on one side, and it is only when they enter the sepulchre (which
the women in Matthew do not enter) that they see a young man sitting
on the right side and clothed in a long white garment, who gives them
the same message which the angel gives to the two Marys in the first
Gospel. Then, at verse 9, the story seems to begin afresh by stating
that the risen Jesus appeared first to Mary Magdalene, just as though a
narrative of the resurrection had not been given already. There is no
•mention of any earthquake in this account. In Luke (xxiv.) we are told
that the women (seemingly a great number') who came with Jesus from
Galilee visited the sepulchre very early in the morning, bringing spices
for the i urpose of embalming the body, they, like the women in the
other Gospels, having not the slighest expectation that he would rise
again. These also find the stone rolled away, and, entering the sepul
chre, they see two men in shining garments, who ask them why they
seek the living among the dead, and remind them (of what every one
of them had utterly forgotten) that Jesus had distinctly forewarned
them of his sufferings, death, and resurrection ; but no message is given
that the disciples are to seek Jesus in Galilee, nor does Jesus appear to
them himself as he does in the other Synoptics. The Evangelist then
adds that they went and told all these things to the eleven and all the
rest, and that the Apostles especially received their information from
Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, the names
being for the third time different. Far from believing their report, the
Apostles deride them as babblers of nonsense (Liddell and Scott, s. v.
Kypos, Luke xxiv. 11). Still Peter, incredulous as he is, has curiosity
0
�34
The Tactics and Defeat of the
I have said enough to show that Mr Cook’s Essay
is worse than worthless for all except those who are
ready to think what he thinks, and to say what he
says ; nor are the other lectures included in this series
in any larger degree addressed to honest and unpreju
diced thinkers, who are determined that they will not
enough to go to the tomb, where, stooping down, he beholds the linen
clothes laid by themselves, and, fully convinced by this somewhat slight
evidence, departs, “wondering in himself at that which was come to
pass.” In John (xx. 1, &c.). Mary Magdalene comes alone “ early, when
it was yet dark” (in Mark the sun has risen), and sees the stone taken
away from the sepulchre (where then was the guard, who thus suffered
her to approach near enough to find out in the dark that the sepulchre
was open ?) Instead of entering the tomb, as the women do in the
second and third Gospels, or seeing any angel or man as they do in all
the Synoptics, Mary Magdalene at once hastens back to Peter, James,
and the beloved disciple, and informs them not that Jesus is risen,
but that “ they have taken away the Lord from the sepulchre, and we
know not where they have laid him,” thus implying that, she had not
gone thither alone, as stated apparently in verse 1. Ou hearing this
Peter and the other disciple hasten to the tomb, both running, but the
other disciple outruns him, and stooping down at the sepulchre door,
looks in, and sees the linen clothes lying, but does not go in. Peter
then comes up, and going in, sees further that the napkin which had
been about the head of Jesus was not lying with the linen clothes, but
was wrapped together in a place by itself. The other disciple then goes
in, sees and believes. (This visit is related in words which are almost
verbatim the same with those in which Luke records the visit of Peter,
tne only difference being that the credit of being the first believer in
the resurrection is here transferred to the beloved disciple.) Without
waiting for anything further, the two disciples go home again; but
Mary lingers, ■weeping, not having reached their assurance of convic
tion. (Why did not the twd Apostles, seeing her in this grief, stay to
comfort her, and make her share their belief that Jesus was risen ?)
Stooping as she wept, and, looking into the sepulchre, she sees two
angels in white (who, as they came since Mary and the two disciples
stood at the door, must have entered through the solid rock or earth).
These angels are seated, the one at the head and the other at the feet
where the body of Jesus had lain. (In Mark the “young man” is
seated on the right side.) When they ask Mary the cause of her sorrow,
she replies that it is because she knows not where the body of Jesus
has been taken. Without waiting for any further words from the
angels, of whose real nature she seems to have no notion, Mary turns
herself back and sees Jesus standing, but fails to recognise him. (In
the Synoptics the women know him at once, at the mere sound of his
voice, and as in Matthew xxviii. 9, hold him by the feet and worship
him.) The question of Jesus, “Why weepest thou? whom seekest
thou ? ” sounds to her as coming from no familiar voice, and as
she looks at him she sees apparently nothing especially spiritual
or remarkable about his person, for, supposing him to be the gar
dener, she beseeches him, if he has taken the body away, to tell her
where he has placed it. Jesus answers by simply calling her by her
name ; and the spell which had held her thus far is dissolved. Mary,
turning round, greets him as Rabboni, her Master, and seemingly seeks
to touch him. But whereas in the Synoptics Jesus on his first appear
ance allows the women to embrace his feet, here he says to Mary
�Christian Evidence Society.
35
accept any incidents as facts until they have adequate
historical evidence to justify them in so doing. In
short, the Christian Evidence Society is not working
for those who question or reject any portion of that
evidence. It would be more candid to say this at
starting. It would be more honourable to sail under
genuine colours, and to admit that they write only for
those who agree with what they say. As it is, the policy
by which Christian advocates ignore the real points at
issue, and take refuge in generalities, is becoming
notorious throughout the land, and is branded more
and more as utter cowardice, and as gross dishonesty
and falsehood. From the Archbishop of York, down
wards, the so-called orthodox clergy and laity may,
like the ostrich, hide their heads in a bush, and think
that no one sees them ; but all who are determined that
they will accept no statement except on the evidence
of facts, are tempted to hold up such conduct to the
contempt and derision of mankind. They assail no
office, they asperse no one’s character ; they do but
say that clergy and laity alike are bound to tell the
truth about the events of the New Testament his
tory, as about the events of all other history;
and they say further, that the evasion of this duty is
equivalent to deliberate and gross lying. For the
present I will only add that, as this self-styled Chris
tian Evidence Society has deliberately disregarded
my challenge,—a challenge which, as every honest
man will feel, touches the root of the matter : and,
Magdalene, “Touch me not, for I am not yet ascended to my Father,”
and then he gives her a message for his “ brethren,” which, however, is
not a charge (as in the other Gospels) that they should go to Galilee in
order to meet him, but the announcement, “I ascend unto my Father
and your Father, and to my God and your God.” This story is in almost
every particular a totally different story, which excludes the. Synoptic
narratives; and the latter again differ from each other in most important
particulars. As these, the Synoptic accounts, cannot be dismissed as
less truthworthy than the fourth Gospel, the Johannine story is at once
to be cast aside without foundation, while the contradictions of the
Synoptic narratives are such as to deprive them of all credit. Hence of
the historical resurrection of Jesus we have no evidence whatever.”
�36 Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society.
further, as this challenge was given long ago to the
late Dean Alford, who treated it after a like sort, I
hereby take the refusal of the Society to answer
my questions as being, on their part, an acknowledg
ment of defeat, and I publish it as such to the
world.
Thomas Scott,
Mount Pleasant, .
Pamsgate.
�POSTSCRIPT.
Speaking on behalf of' the Christian Evidence
Society, Mr Cook has asserted, that the evidences of
that which he styles Christianity are complete and
adequate. I appeal fearlessly to the honesty and inde
pendence of my countrymen to determine whether
this be the case or not; I rely on their fairness to
weigh dispassionately all the evidence bearing on the
subject, as it has been preserved to us; and, in this
confidence, I purpose to lay before them all the facts
or alleged facts in the history which is supposed to
furnish a basis for the dogmatic system of traditional
Christianity. These facts, or alleged facts, will be
examined fully, and in complete detail, in a new
edition of the 'English Life of Jesus,’ a work which
will confine itself to the scrutiny of facts, without
propounding any theories (after the method whether
of Strauss or Renan or any other writer) as to the
mode in which the narratives of these alleged facts
came into existence.
The work, in short, will lay before the reader the
thoughts of a writer who wishes only to ascertain the
truth, and who addresses himself to those who,
without prejudice or prepossession, are prepared in
every instance to ask themselves seriously, Are these
THINGS SO ?
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, Mount Pleasant, Ramsgate.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the
Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Letter and Spirit. By a Clergyman of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South
Australia. Price 4d.
A Few Words on the Trinity, the Holy Spirit, and the Divinity and Incarnation of
Jesus. Price 6d.
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give Answers.
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible. By a Layman and M. A. of Trin. Coll., Dublin. 6d.
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss. Price 6d.
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible. Price Is., free by post.
English Life of Jesus, or Historical and Critical Analysis of the Gospels; complete
in Six Parts, containing about 500 pages. Price 7s. 6d., free by post.
Against Hero-Making in Religion By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism. By Prof. F. W. Newman. 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which Attend the Study of the Scriptures.
By the Right Rev. Francis Hare, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price is. Id., post free.
On the Defective Morality of the New Testament. By Prof. F. W. Newman.
Price 6d.
The “ Church and its Reform. ” A Reprint. Price Is.
“ The Church of England Catechism Examined.” By Jeremy Bentham, Esq. A Reprint.
Price Is.
Original Sin. Price 6d.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
Babylon. By the Rev P. S. Desprez, B.D. Price 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price 6d.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records; with special
reference to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synopticsand the Fourth
Gospel. By Thos. Scott. Price Is.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Bbneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. 6d.
The Meaning of the Age. By the Author of ‘ The Pilgrim and the Shrine.’ Price 6d.
“ James and Paul.” A Tract by Emer. Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Law and the Creeds. Price 6d.
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Introductory Remarks.
By Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A. and M.R.I. Price is.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy, By Rev. John Oxlee. Price 6d.
The Bigot and the Sceptic. By Emer. Professor F. W. N ewman. Price 6d.
Church Cursing and Atheism. By the Rev. Thomas P. Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S., &c.,
Rector of Croft, Warrington. Price Is.
Practical Remarks on “ The Lord’s Prayer.” By a Layman. With Anno
tations by a Dignitary of the Church of England. Price 6d.
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil. By a Clergyman
of the Church of England. Price 6d.
Commentators and Hierophants ; or, The Honesty of Christian Commentators.
In Two Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord
Bishop of Norwich. Part I., price Is. Part II., price Is. 6d.
The Evangelist and the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church
of England. Price is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-Sense.
By a Country Parson. Parts ]., II., III. Price 6d. each Part.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The tactics and defeat of the Christian Evidence Society
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Scott, Thomas
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: [3], 6-36, [2] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Publisher's list on unnumbered page at the end. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. The Christian Evidence Society is a UK Christian apologetics organisation founded in 1870.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1871
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT152
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
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 tactics and defeat of the Christian Evidence Society), 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
Apologetics
Authority
Bible-Evidences
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8fb84364c792117a7cbae289e8a1d7e5.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CBdVLYerOxPiaydsvl%7EIKJz8AvxJsEUSfiZfhpMFQPJAxJ6UjV6pye%7EgchP1V6U9eF4AUG4bbVIKSP64w13vwpZbp8gkykum51khveIHfbnR3IlkvF0J9cF7tulDTMxmZfIc6CpL3PDfggsoYHFmyj29N2GVeVbMbPfeZ4%7E7Nmxa8qRiPiAM86JD-3nIrivcPttBx7fcKBK8iebA4MmroKd3bozUl9Xoy4chEr%7ECr68CrPP4FDIMC6uuFIsVtTy02uLMBAiew3onwMYp1ftLtNUd0iDYjNLsA%7E6hDeCtiYdvEqKJxBwlJ%7Ehe7djrT-7dF%7Ej7Jc2Fma9ysHV%7EhOdRfQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
23deaeaef7a79127eda4dff6ad165408
PDF Text
Text
CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE SOCIETY:
ITS
PROFESSED PRINCIPLES and ACTUAL POLICY.
NTEREST in the career of this promising though
hitherto disappointing institution prompted a
visit to Willis’s Rooms on Friday afternoon, June 5,
when the third anniversary was being celebrated.
Whether “ celebrated ” is the happiest term or not,
may be decided after acquaintance with what follows.
In the circular which accompanied the request for our
subscription, the Christian Evidence Society declares
(after enumerating the various aggressive efforts of
heterodox propagandists) that it is their object to
“stem the tide of scepticism.” They “hold that
difficulties must be met by fair argument, and doubts
removed by candid explanations. They desire, too, to
meet the bolder and more aggressive propagation of
infidelity, to confront its champions, and refute their
arguments; to rescue inquiring minds from being
misled by objections—essentially old, capable of refu
tation, and oft refuted, which nevertheless, if un
challenged in their new forms, may be thought un
answerable because unanswered.” A most laudable
object, would to Heaven they would carry it out!
and it was to hear the Society’s own report of its
warfare that our visit was paid.
I
�2
There were about 150 persons present, of whom
perhaps two-thirds were ladies, and a large proportion
of the remainder clergymen, as might perhaps be ex
pected, seeing that the speakers comprised the Arch
bishop of York, Bishop of London (in the chair),
Bishop of Gloucester, Bishop of Oxford, besides lesser
dignitaries of the Church. Prayers were read from
a small book, having no special reference to the work
of the Society. The report was lengthy; common
place at first, it grew chilly as it proceeded, until it
left us decidedly dull. Por, after reviewing the year’s
work, the opposition to which was characterised as
“ only feeble,” and planning out schemes to come,
the dismal truth had to be spoken, that Christians
had not rushed to the defence of the “ faith once
delivered” with the hoped-for energy: the sinews of
war were failing, the funds are dreadfully low. The
receipts had been 1,493Z.; expenditure, l,480Z.; leaving
a balance of 13Z. only “ to stem the tide of scepticism.”
Worse remained behind, the loss of large benefactors;
and there would not have been even a balance at all,
had not pressure of circumstances forced them to sell
out one-fourth of their reserve fund. We were much
relieved to hear, after this, that some of the members
have offered special prayers on the evening of the last
day in each month, in private, for the benefit of the
Society; and though at present the answer had not
been all that might be expected from a “ prayer
answering God,” we were all earnestly requested to
do likewise, since this mode of raising subscriptions
had been “ specially sanctioned by his Grace the
Archbishop of York,” who yawned heartily during
the whole of the report.
The Bishop of London struck the uppermost chord
in the hearts of all present by deploring, in his least
cheerful manner, “that society is saturated with
infidelity from the highest grade to the lowest,” that
men are satisfied to live according to the dictates “ of
�3
their own evil hearts.” The masses, he confessed,
do not attend church, and he believed that the extent
of passive unbelief is more harmful than active infi
delity. Still, he thought that this infidelity is not
deeper to-day than formerly, but more multiform, as
they are now attacked at once by the coarse objections
of Paine, and by the keen criticism of Strauss and
others. His lordship favoured us with a long cata
logue of various phases of modern unbelief, which he
summed up in one word, “ Egotism,” that is the root
of all heresy to-day. He considered that Christians
had been too full of apology and defence of late, and
advised the taking of higher ground in future, stating
boldly that they believe would perhaps have a better
effect with the people than mere argument. He did
not add that assertion was better than proof, when
proof is wanting. The Bishop effectually damped
our not over lively spirits, but there was possibly a
special providence in the fact that very few could
hear a word of his very badly read address. He
concluded with a feeble apology for the existence
of the Society, “ whose work is so valuable, but the
results of which,” said his lordship, “ will only be
known—hereafter. ’ ’
The Chairman stated that a “ good deal of the
infidelity of the day arose from ignorance, and hence
the necessity of a society like the Christian Evidence
Society, which met the Infidel on his own ground,
an.d showed by lectures, pamphlets, and tracts that
Christians were in the right.” Surely the Bishop of
London forgot the facts of the case. It is true that
ignorance breeds superstition, a state of mind largely
traded on by priests of all denominations ; but the
so-called infidelity of the present day, which the
Christian Evidence Society does not attempt to touch,
is the result of the increasing amount of intelligence
in all classes, leading to the examination of the
grounds on which certain facts are said to rest, and
�4
thereby the said facts are proved to have no
existence.
It is to be feared that the clergy comprising the
Christian Evidence Society are hardly so scrupulous
in their statements as their profession should make
them. Had the Bishop said that without the sup
port of the ignorant and superstitious such societies
as the Christian Evidence Society could not be kept
alive, he would indeed have uttered a great truth.
To ignore, as the Christian Evidence Society has
hitherto done, such challenges as that by Judge
Strange or Mr Thomas Scott, seems proof that they
fear to meet such writers. At any rate they ignore
them wholly ; as yet the Society has shrunk from
“ confronting the champions ” of free thought, and,
like Ealstaff, shows its bravery only by big words.
Or are, perhaps, these gentlemen so ignorant and
obscure as to be quite beneath their notice F
It is to be hoped that a steady persistence by these
gentlemen, and a host of others like them, in the
work of laying bare the immense assumptions and
assertions of the orthodox, may at last force this
Society to give some public reply to their various
pamphlets.
The Archbishop of York is abetter specimen of the
Church Militant than his brother of London, and as
he shook himself together it was evident there was
to be a serious deliverance. After paying the con
ventional compliment to “My Lord Bishop ” for the
magnificent oration from the chair, His Grace reluc
tantly declared he could not share the Bishop’s hope
that infidelity is decreasing. With great emphasis
he assured us it is increasing every day. We were
taken to Germany and France, and back to England,
in proof of the terrible encroachment of the great
army of sceptics, and were told how an astronomer had
given a detailed explanation of the movements of the
planetary bodies to one who, astounded, said to the
�5
man of Science, “ Why, you have never even men
tioned the name of God ! ” “ Sir,” said the philo
sopher, “ there is no need of such an hypothesis.”
His Grace also believes that the appearance of one
■who believes is quite as effectual as an argument,
which met with the approbation of many around him.
However potent for good the sight of a live Arch
bishop or Bishop may be, and we do not doubt it in
the least, it seems hardly probable that an exhibition
of lecturers or even the lectures themselves, will effect
much towards the Society’s object—“ the refutation
of arguments which may be thought unanswerable
because unanswered.” He deprecates evidential dis
courses and arguments in the pulpit, which might
cause many to doubt who did not doubt before, but
advises special lectures in suitable places, although he
rightly added that “ Christianity is just as true to-day
as ever it was.” Children ought not to be taught the
proofs of Christianity, nor to reason upon its facts, but
this sentiment was strongly opposed by several succeed
ing speakers. His Grace grew boisterously eloquent
with acknowledged borrowed illustrations and quota
tions upon “ the intellectual side of the Trinity,”
treating us to a little sermon suitable to the Calendar.
But sadness followed with the words “ there have been
works published this year which are as hard to answer
as any that have ever appeared.” He gave no signs of
any intention to reply to them himself, and deliberately
pooh-poohed a suggestion of the report, offered as an
incitement to further subscriptions, that the Society
should publish some works, after the pattern of
Butler’s ‘ Analogy,’ carefully reasoned out, which
shall claim the attention and dispose of the objections
of the cultured sceptic, who will not trouble himself
with their small publications. The Archbishop said
they must let this alone : “you cannot do it properly,
you must not become a publishing society, leave that
to the S.P.C.K. and continue as you are doing.” With
�6
an excuse for himself and Right Reverend Brethren,
that they could not be of much use to the cause,
having so little time at command, His Gtace con
cluded with an earnest appeal for—not arguments,
but funds, and. left the hall. The Rev. W. Arthur,
Wesleyan Minister, followed with an able speech of a
few minutes, in which he demolished Comte with
consummate ease in five sentences and a half. He
held that a child’s mind soon expands, delighting
in argument and reason [this unlucky oversight
of the Creator], could only be remedied by in
stilling into it early the glorious principles of the
Christian doctrine. Dr Jobson, Wesleyan, cheer
fully objected to be classed as a Nonconformist,
since he would willingly sign the Thirty-nine Articles.
He agreed with the last speaker that “ the children
should not be left to Satan,” and after saying nothing
for another five minutes, sat down. Dr J. H. Glad
stone announced himself as a man of Science. “ Some
of us,- or rather two or three of the few who are
known as men of Science, are supposed to be unbe
lievers ! ” A slander against which he vehemently
protested, for though one or two (e.y., Huxley, Tyndall,
Carpenter, and such like scientists) may not be “ with
us ” in all points, they are but units compared with the
great company “ of us,” who reconcile fact and faith.
This gentleman apparently forgot he was not lectur
ing to his class of youths, but at length, after sundry
“ scientific ” sneers at men who pretend to know more
than himself, the well-prepared performance closed.
Thus far we heard nothing about the victories won, or
schemes of future operations ; we were lost in contem
plation of the in-flowing “ tide of scepticism.” The
Bishop of Gloucester is given to plain speaking, espe
cially when advising how to dispose of an inconvenient
opponent, so we looked for light. His lordship had
charge of a resolution embodying a proposal to pub
lish the big books, previously discouraged by the
�7
Archbishop. With great ingenuity, more worthy of
the bar than the bench, his lordship found a way to
support the Society without coming into conflict with
His Grace, by dwelling upon the word “ further;” that
is, the Society will not publish, but only “further”
the publication of the two works, one of which is to
be upon the Gospels, and the other upon the Miracles.
An author of great eminence has undertaken one of
these already. The speaker dealt with many topics,
but managed to omit the interesting question, lost
sight of by all speakers, “ What has been done to
‘ refute the arguments ’ of the many scholars of
eminence who have pointedly challenged the Society ?
The Bishop read extracts from the most recently
published work of this kind, to show us how terribly
infidel in character our first writers are becoming.
But not one word of reply, not a sign of “ refutation ”
or “ stemming the tide.” He also lamented that his
time is so fully occupied, or he might—(no, he did
not say that.) He showed how Butler of the
‘ Analogy ’ is useless to-day, and so of the rest.
The brightest gem of his speech was when he
announced, in seductive tones, that the Christian
Evidence Society has plenty of room,—room for men
of genius to work for her, room for money to pay the
men of genius, and in sad need of the prayers of all
who, like their lordships, could not supply anything
else.
Others followed, but it was a weary wail through
out. The principles of the Society seem to flourish
in an inverse ratio to their efforts to propagate them.
Thev were a more powerful force in their first days
than now in their third year. Their confessions of
failure, whether in gaining respect, sympathy,
adherents, or money, are of more worth to the
opponents they ignore than to the cause they
profess to support. They challenge, but do not
fight; they argue, but do not reason; they see
�8
the gauntlet, but look another way; they profess
to be bold, but accept the taunt of cowardice.
It is their principle “to meet difficulties with fair
argument, and remove doubts by candid explana
tions;” it is their policy to meet the doubter with
exploded arguments, and that not sufficing, either
press him into their own army or dismiss him con
firmed in his doubt. Their apparent advance, when
closely observed and challenged, proves to be a stra
tegic movement culminating in retreat. Three years
of patient effort to arouse these apologists to their
duty of answering the persistent attacks of men
abler and more consistent than themselves, have
proved the impossibility of galvanising a moribund
body into active life. The deepest conviction of im
partial minds upon leaving the meeting was that the
Christian Evidence Society has, at great expense,
done little else than furnish evidence of the weakness
of the cause it defends, a conviction which, “how
ever capable of refutation,” if not removed by
“candid explanations,” will assuredly “ be thought
unanswerable because unanswered.”
C. W. REYNELL, printer, little pulteney street, kaymarket, w.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Christian Evidence Society: its professed principles and actual policy
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [s.l.]
Collation: 8 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[Thomas Scott?]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[187-?]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5543
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Bible
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Christian Evidence Society: its professed principles and actual policy), 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
Christian Evidence Society
Conway Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/90fbbd460e4a1378317a42716292533b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=CuKyrbWgFtk8wk2fTC4fow4rxcv-VRPBWTLw-zrZiheuvno39HoY6P6O7fy4BxYsmOzORksibrvXNZjYy8ErGbJUnIHFtYfhsDaUoHlQTSp1D5Jf8Iz8fzPocvglNIDMYqhfbn09THUNpln9L2RPAkZsLpSEnH-IEQK2d6iIQIt4MYNKf4Cb1v-XHe6mIuChsBwxbNbSbgp2jT2lqxNGtP15RFCTOMlwmUN%7E2gG88R23v3vNhTmFNrAg87uuVrgoE7yj2Xl8ywwJanvBlhbNXPYOBrjOm0eZ%7E1AgDngoWBa4ZGmHCATm3xaw3nDUvYc3culBb0SRQpU4FNkuGURuJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f0f7121a0d29afdaa7fc055d4b16f237
PDF Text
Text
�I sHiLr JBI
�$9+7
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE
GRAND OLD BOOK
A REPLY TO
THE RIGHT HON. W. E. GLADSTONE’S
“ THE IMPREGNABLE BOCK OF HOLY SCRIPTURE »
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON:
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1891.
�LONDON:
PRTNTED AND PUBLISHED DY G. W. POOLE
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�CONTENTS.
PAGE
PREFACE....................................................................... -
-
v
PRELIMINARY VIEW......................................................................... 1
THE CREATION STORY........................................................... 17
THE FALL OF MAN
------
THE PSALMS...........................................................
34
-
44
THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION -----
51
...
64
....
71
CORROBORATIONS OF SCRIPTURE
GLADSTONE AND HUXLEY
MODERN SCEPTICISM
-
�k
�PREFACE
There is something exhilarating in Mr. Gladstone’s
vivacity at an age when most men are but the relics
or shadows of their former selves. His restless
energy, and his unflagging interest in so many pur
suits, are at least the indications of a wide sympathy
and a strenuous intelligence. But nature, while
endowing him with a magnetic and commanding per
sonality, did not include originality in his intellectual
gifts. As a statesman he has always followed the
thought of his age, and as a theologian he lags
behind it.
The late Dr. Dollinger placed Mr. Gladstone in the
front rank of English theologians. “ I do not think,”
said the great German scholar, “ that you have in
your Church any superior to him.” But this state
ment should probably be taken with a large grain of
salt. When one Grand Old Man praises another
Grand Old Man, who happens to be his personal
friend and admirer, we must allow a liberal margin
for the warmth of sentiment. For our part, we should
say that Mr. Gladstone does not shine as a theologian,
although his style is prelatical enough for an arch
bishop. His early work on Church and State was cut
to mincemeat by Lord Macaulay. His famous pam
phlet on the Vatican Decrees was courteously, calmly,
but most remorselessly, reduced to shreds and tatters
by Cardinal Newman. His recent tilt with Colonel
�vi.
Preface.
Ingersoll was an egregious and almost ignominious
failure, while his controversies with Professor Huxley
have shown the futility of the methods of parlia
mentary discussion in the domain of science and
scholarship.
Assuredly there are better theologians than Mr.
Gladstone in England, but they are too discreet to
risk a battle for their faith. Mr. Gladstone rushes in
where they feai’ to tread. He is filled with a sense of
security because he does not understand the real
nature and force of sceptical objections. What is
admirable, is not his fitness for the task, but his
irrepressible courage. Even this has been questioned
by cynics, who point out that whereas his previous
defences of orthodoxy have been made in reviews
where he might be replied to, his latest defence has
been made in a religious magazine where reply is im
possible.
Mr. Gladstone’s articles in Good Words have been
collected, and published after revision and enlarge
ment in the form of a volume, called “ The Impregnable
Rock of Holy Scripture.” This is a sufficiently
sonorous title, which would sound well from a pulpit,
but it lies open to an easy criticism.
If the Rock of Holy Scripture is impregnable, why
is it so earnestly defended ? Who is anxious about a
really impregnable position ? All its occupants have
to do is to sit still and watch the enemy with amuse
ment. The moment fire is opened on the besiegers,
the impregnability of the position is surrendered—as
the position itself may be at the end of the battle.
Mr. Gladstone may reply that his object is not so
much to repel scepticism as to reassure belief; not so
much to thin the ranks of the enemy as to prevent
�Preface.
vii.
them from being swelled by deserters from the impreg
nable citadel. But his appeal cannot be so restricted.
It is necessarily made in the hearing of both forces,
and in so far as it fails to answer the arguments of
scepticism it will loosen the allegiance he seeks to
confirm.
In replying to Mr. Gladstone’s defence of Scripture,
a critic is entitled to lose sight of his eminence as a
statesman. There is equality of citizenship in the
democracy of thought, and there are no authorities in
the republic of reason. Nor does a writer’s eminence
in one department of mental activity give him a right
to be deferred to in another. Whoever publishes his
opinions, of necessity challenges criticism, and it is the
business of a true critic to be overawed by no man’s
greatness, but to canvas his views and arguments as
fearlessly and impartially as if they were advanced by
the humblest and most obscure controversialist.
This principle must be the justification, if any
justification is needed, for the freedom with which the
present writer has expressed himself in opposition to
Mr. Gladstone. If he has evei’ trespassed beyond an
allowable freedom, he begs pardon of Mr. Gladstone
and the reader. At the same time he ventures to
suggest that mere politeness is a virtue in which
knaves often excel; that it may be medicinal to
speak plainly when the flatterers of a great man
mislead him; and that the world is so much in need of
truth—the one sure friend of humanity—that a single
grain of it should outweigh all the dross with which it
happens to be surrounded.
��THE GRAND OLD BOOK.
CHAPTER I.
PRELIMINARY VIEW.
With an admirable and engaging ingenuousness Mr.
Gladstone tells us, at the outset, what are his quali
fications for the task he has undertaken. He does not
understand Hebrew, but that is a trifling disadvantage
in the present stage of controversy. There are very
few persons who understand Hebrew, and some of
them understand nothing else. Nor will the inspira
tion of Scripture, with the masses of thoughtful people,
stand or fall on the discussion of Hebrew texts. In
this country they think in English, and must be saved
or damned in English. The question will be decided,
so far as they are concerned, not on grounds of arch
aeology or minute scholarship, but on the broad ground
of science and common sense. Whitman’s advice to
every reader is, “ Dismiss what affronts your own soul,”
and men can and will do this while the pundits are
wrangling over textual obscurities and subtle problems
of syntax and style.
Secondly, Mr. Gladstone believes, what is true, that
“ there is a very large portion of the community whose
opportunities of judgment have been materially smaller
than his own.” But this is only saying that the oneeyed man will be king among the blind. Thirdly, he
has devoted a great part of his leisure during forty
years to “ the earnest study^of pre-historic antiquity
�2
The Grand Old Book.
and its documents in regard to the Greek race,” and
here he flings in the perilous statement that “ the early
Scriptures may in the mass be roughly called contem
porary with the Homeric period.” But the most pro
found study of Greek antiquities would scarcely confer
any special fitness for a judgment on the antiquities of
a people so dissimilar as the Jews. The real fact is
that Mr. Gladstone has the same qualifications, perhaps
a little heightened, as ordinary educated Englishmen.
He is at the mercy of specialists like the rest of us,
and only argues from the obvious results of their
labors.
A much less acute man than Mr. Gladstone would
see that those obvious results have effectually dispose d
of the doctrine of plenary inspiration. It is not sur
prising, therefore, that he warns the Spurgeon-Denison
school against their danger. He sums up the difficul
ties of their position under seven heads. He says
“ there may possibly have been ”—
1. Imperfect comprehension of that which was communi
cated.
2. Imperfect expression of what had been comprehended.
3. Lapse of memory in oral transmission.
4. Errors of copyists in written transmission.
5. Changes with the lapse of time in the sense of words.
6. Variations arising from renderings into different tongues,
especially as between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint,
which was probably based upon MS. older than the compilers
of the Hebrew text could have had at their command.
7. There are three variant chronologies of the New Testa
ment, according to the Hebrew, the Septuagint, and the Sama
ritan Pentateuch, and it would be hazardous to claim for any
one of them the sanction of a Divine revelation.
“ That in some sense,” Mr. Gladstone says, “ the
Holy Scriptures contain something of a human element
�The Grand Old Booh.
a
is clear, as to the New Testament, from diversities of
reading, from slight conflicts in the narrative, and
from an insignificant number of doubtful cases as to
the authenticity of the text.” This admission is honest,
but is made with considerable discretion. “ An insig
nificant number of doubtful cases” is a very judicious
expression; while “ slight conflicts in the narrative ”
is perhaps a trifle more than judicious. There are three
contradictory accounts, for instance, of such an ex
tremely important event as the conversion of Saint
Paul; and although the inscription on the cross of
Christ was written in Greek, as well as in Latin
and Hebrew, the Holy Ghost inspired the four evange
lists (in Greek) so accurately that they copied it in
four different ways. These instances are only a sample
of a monstrous mass of “ slight conflicts.” We must
further add that “diversities of reading” is a very
mild expression of the fact that there are a hundred
and fifty thousand various readings of texts even in
the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament.
This does not exhaust Mr. Gladstone’s admissions.
He refers, with apparent approval, to Dr. Driver’s,
article in the Contemporary Review, in which it is
shown “ with great clearness and ability that the basis ”
of continental criticism is “ sound and undeniable.”
Then he writes as follows :
“ It has long been known, for example, that portions of the
historical books of the Old Testament, such as the Books of
Chronicles, were of a date very far later than most of the events
which they record, and that a portion of the prophecies included
in the Book of Isaiah were later than his time. We are now
taught that, according to the prevailing judgment of the learned,
the form in which the older books of the Old Testament have
come down to us does not correspond as a rule with their
titles, and is due to later though still, as is largely held, remote
�4
The Grand Old Booh.
periods; and that the law presented to us in the Pentateuch is
not an enactment of a single date, but has been formed by a
process of growth, and by gradual accretions.”
Mr. Gladstone says that these are “ disturbing an
nouncements/"’ and they would be far more “ disturb
ing ” if he made them as complete as he might find
warrant for in the pages of Dr. Driver, Canon Cheyne
and Archdeacon Farrar. Nevertheless, the Grand Old
Man does not lose his equanimity. He was brought up
a believer, he has lived a believer, and he will die a
believer. So far from being dismayed, he is in a per
fect state of jubilation. The more the old Book is
turned about in the kaleidoscope of scientific criticism,
the more it shifts into new forms, the better he likes
it. If the old arrangement showed it was inspired,
the new arrangement shows it still more. He rejoices
to think that no “ weapon of offence” has “yet been
forged ” which can impair the “ efficiency ” of Scripture
for “practical purposes.” Let destructive criticism do
its worst, we “ yet may hold firmly, as firmly as of old,”
to the impregnable rock.
Such words sound like and are a challenge “ to accept
the Scriptures on the moral and spiritual and historical
ground of their characters in themselves, and of the
work which they, and the agencies associated with them
have done and are doing in the world.” But this is
the introduction of a fresh argument. For the present
at any rate, Mr. Gladstone is bound to argue in the
light of Cardinal Newman’s aphorism, “ A true religion
is a religion founded on truth; a false religion is a
religion founded on falsehood.”
Mr. Gladstone goes even farther. He is ready to be
on with the new love as soon as he is off with the old
one. He surmises that “ this destructive criticism, if
�The Grand Old Booh.
5
entirely made good, would, in the view of an inquiry
really searching, comprehensive, and philosophical,
leave as its result not less but greater reason for
admiring the hidden modes by which the great Artificer
works out his designs.” In other words, the Lord
may have been keeping us in a fog for two thousand
years in order to make us appreciate the change when
he brings us into the daylight. But this is not the
method adopted by human parents towards their chil
dren ; and any Board School teacher who followed it
would be soon amongst the unemployed.
The argument indeed—if it be an argument—is a
pawky one ; for, if Mr. Gladstone thinks the new view
of the Bible is likely to increase our faith, why does he
not accept it unhesitatingly? His attitude is really
that of a man who has made up his mind to cling to
the Bible in any circumstances, and he is obviously
writing for readers who are filled with a similar deter
mination.
Mr. Gladstone is so far, indeed, from yielding with
out reserve to the conclusions of destructive criticism,
that he warns his readers against an excessive alarm.
“ Those conclusions,” he says, “ appear to be in a great
measure floating and uncertain, the subject of manifold
controversy, and secondly they seem to shift and vary
with rapidity in the minds of those who hold them.”
Then, with the dexterity of the old parliamentary
hand, he introduces a lecture by Mr. Margoliouth, the
Laudian Professor of Arabic at Oxford, who thinks it
possible to reconstruct the Semitic original of the Book
of Ecclesiastes, and who is for giving Rabbinical
Hebrew a greater antiquity than is usually assigned to
it. This would, of course, involve a greater antiquity
for Middle and Ancient Hebrew, and by such means
�The Grand Old Book.
the Pentateuch and the ‘k historical ” books might be
made a century or two older than is allowed in the
current chronology. Here, then, says Mr. Gladstone,
there is “ war, waged on critical grounds, in the critical
camp ”; and he thinks the spectator will be “ the more
hardened in his determination not to rush prematurely
to final conclusions.”
This bit of dexterity is perhaps an effective piece of
ad populum rhetoric. But is it worthy of Mr. Glad
stone I His friend, Professor Max Muller, in the first
volume of his Gifford lectures, utters an anticipative
protest against this infatuation. “ To say that critics
disagree among themselves/’ he remarks, “ and that
they need not be listened to till they agree, is one of
those lazy commonplaces which no true scholar would
dare to employ.” It is true that Mr. Gladstone does
not quite go to this length, but that is where his
observations will lead the orthodox reader.
We have called Mr. Gladstone’s attitude “infatua
tion.” It is a strong word, but is it not justified ? No
one doubts that critics disagree. But do they not also
agree ? Is it not a fact that, in the mass, they move
farther and farther from the orthodox position ?
Certainly they debate many points as they progress,
but they keep moving in the same direction ; and it is
worse than idle for Mr. Gladstone to obscure this fact
by directing attention to their discussions along the
road. He forgets that perfect harmony is not to be
expected. It has not been arrived at in regard to the
Greek classics—for instance, Homer—which have been
discussed with the greatest freedom, as well as by the
keenest intellects, ever since the Renaissance; and how
could it be hoped for in regard to the Bible, which has
only been scientifically studied during the last half
�The Grand Old Booh.
7
century 1 Another difficulty is that most of the critics
have eaten orthodox bread, and have thus been deterred
from free and fearless movement by the severe law of
self-preservation.
The word “ infatuation,” as applied to Mr. Glad
stone’s attitude, is further justified by a cursory view
of the problem which the critics are solving. The Old
Testament, if we except the so-called Apocrypha, is
the whole extant Jewish literature before the time of
Christ. Probably there were hundreds, posssibly thou
sands, of other writings, but they have all perished.
The consequence is that comparative Hebrew is a very
different study from comparative Greek. All the
Jewish books treat of one subject—religion. This
dreadfully narrows the field of research. And it is
stilP further narrowed, as well as obscured, by the
absence of a mass of contemporary writings in any one
age, that would throw light upon each other. Thus
the study of comparative Hebrew is almost entirely
internal to the Bible, and its difficulties are immense.
Were not the critics testing the foundations of the
greatest historic religion, their labors—so recondite, so
painful, and so minute—would be a frightful waste of
human energy.
Well, these critics, working at such a task, which is
not half finished, are not quite harmonious. But with
what an ill grace does this come from a politician like
Mr. Gladstone 1 The Irish problem, for intricacy and
obscurity, is nothing to the problem of the date and
authorship of the Old Testament books. Yet although
it has been before Mr. Gladstone ever since he entered
Parliament; although it has been a burning question
during the fifty years of his public life ; and although
the data for a solution were always at hand; he has
�8
The Grand Old Booh.
only “ found salvation ” at the eleventh hour. He
might reply, of course, that he has always been moving
in one direction. But that is precisely what may be
said of the body of destructive critics.
The very illustration Mr. Gladstone gives of the
“ floating and uncertain conclusions ” of these gentle-?
men is damnifying to his argument. Wellhausen, in
editing the work of Bleek, accepted “ in a great degree
the genuineness of the Davidic Psalms contained in
the First Book of the Psalter,” but he has since
abandoned this position, and he “ brings down the
general body of the Psalms to a date very greatly
below that of the Babyionic exile.” Now if Wellhausen
had first held the Psalms to be modern, and after
wards held them to be ancient, he would have served
Mr. Gladstone’s purpose. But Wellhausen’s move
ment has been in the opposite direction. Like other
Biblical critics, the farther he goes the farther he leaves
the orthodox position behind him. Surely the old
parliamentary hand must have nodded when he
introduced this fatal illustration.
But Mr. Gladstone’s girds at the critics are, after all,
only reassuring asides to his readers. He does not
seriously contest that the Bible must henceforth be
regarded in a new light, and he sets himself to the task
of showing that the grand old book is still as safe and
sound as ever. To this end he calls upon his readers
to (i look broadly and largely at the subject of Holy
Scripture.” “ I ask them,” he repeats,£< to look at the
subject as they would look at the British Constitution
or at the poetry of Shakespeare.” But this overlooks
the vast difference between revelation and the produc
tions of human genius. We may respect the British
Constitution as fairly good in the circumstances. We
�The Grand Old Book.
9
may revere the work of Shakespeare in spite of its
imperfections. But does Mr. Gladstone mean that we
can. adopt such an attitude towards the revelation of
God ? It is idle to tell us that God's method with us
is “ one of sufficiency not of perfection.” The Bible
is no more sufficient than it is perfect. It may, of
course, be sufficient for those who read into it the
mental and moral discoveries of later ages. But taken
as it stands it is clearly insufficient. Neither slavery
nor polygamy, for instance, does it ever mention with
the slightest disapproval. We have outgrown both,
not by means of the Bible, but in spite of it. On the
other hand, the “ sacred volume ” contains a host of
cruel, brutal, and filthy passages, which a wise and
good Being would never have inserted in a revelation
which he intended for future ages of refinement. This
is a truth which Mr. Gladstone perceives, and he
attempts to drown it in a torrent of rhetoric.
“ Even the moral problems, which may be raised as to
particular portions of the volume, and which may not have
found any absolute and certain solution, are lost in the com
prehensive contemplation of its general strain, its immeasurable
loftiness of aim,” etc., etc.
What is this, however, but a palpable evasion of the
sceptic’s argument ? Loftiness of aim is obvious in the
works of Plato, Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Spinoza,
and other great writers ; and “ immeasurable ” is simply
a question-begging epithet. Besides, no one contends
that the Bible was written for the purpose of teaching
immorality. Then, as to “ comprehensive contempla
tion,” we suspect it means seeing what you want to see,
and missing everything else. A prisoner in the dock,
charged with murder, and clearly proved guilty, might
demand to be tried by a “ comprehensive contemplation ”
�10
The Grand Old Book.
■of his whole life, and offer to produce a hundred
witnesses to show that on ever so many other days than
the one on which he committed the crime he was an
honest and respectable citizen. But the plea would not
prevent a verdict of Guilty.
It is a pity that Mr. Gladstone did not give a few
illustrations of this “ broad view ” and “ comprehen
sive contemplation.” He does, however, deal slightly
with the Book of Genesis.
“ With regal'd to the Book of Genesis, the admission which
has been made implies nothing adverse to the truth of the
traditions it embodies, nothing adverse to their antiquity,
nothing which excludes or discredits the idea of their having
formed part of a primitive revelation, simultaneous or succes
sive. The forms of expression may have changed yet the
substance may remain with an altered literary form, as some
scholars have thought (not, I believe rightly) that the diction
and modelling of the Homeric Poems is comparatively modern?
and yet the matter they embody may belong to a remote
antiquity.”
Now it is difficult to think that Mr. Gladstone, when
he wrote this passage, had the details of the problem
in his mind. If the Book of Genesis was written many
centuries after the time of Moses by unknown hands,
it is certainly open for any person to assert that its
statements may nevertheless be true. There is no limit
to the license of affirmation. But where is the evi
dence? We venture to say there is not a tittle. On
the contrary, there is the strongest negative evidence
against the assertion. Never once, in the history of
the Judges, or the reigns of the early kings, including
David and Solomon, is allusion made to the mythology
of Genesis, any more than to the Mosaic law. Mr.
Gladstone has therefore not only to produce some
�The Grand Old Book.
11
positive evidence of his “ may be/’ but to dispose of
the strong negative evidence to the contrary. For the
rest, “ traditions ” are not revelation, nor is their truth
proved by their “ antiquity ”; and a primitive revelation
is an idle dream in the light of Evolution.
Nothing is clearer than that the mythology of
Genesis and the chief part of the Mosaic law belong
to the post-exile period. The Jews were never an
inventive people. They did invent the synagogue,
which is the original of the Christian church or chapel;
but what else can they claim as theirs ? They con
tributed to Christianity its spirit of fanaticism and its
apparatus of the Sunday meeting-place. All the rest
was contributed, directly or indirectly, by Babylon,
Persia, Egypt, and Greece.
We can only stand aghast at the concluding state
ment that “the operations of criticism, properly so
called, affecting as they do the literary form of the
books, leave the questions of history, miracle, revelation,
substantially where they found them.” This is
equivalent to saying that writings which come into
existence hundreds of years after the events they
record are as good as contemporary documents. It is
like saying that traditions about Julius Caesar, written
down for the age of Charlemagne, would have the
value of Suetonius, the Speeches and Letters of
Cicero, and Caesar’s “ Commentaries.” It is, further,
an assumption, which is unspeakably monstrous, that
the gossip of centuries is excellent evidence of the
truth of a miracle.
We must likewise point out the wild rhetoric of the
assertion that “the Bible invites, attracts,and commands
the adhesion of mankind.” It does not command the
adhesion of Mr. Gladstone’s first political lieutenant,
�12
The Grand Old Booh.
Mr. John Morley. It does not command the adhesion
of 160,000,000 Hindus, 155,000,000 Muhammedans,
and 500,000,000 Buddhists. It does command the
adhesion—such as it is—of 350,000,000 Christians.
And that adhesion is “attracted” by the well-nigh
irresistible force of early training, and “invited” by
the political and social ostracism—if not the active
persecution—of every open dissenter. With such
advantages “ Jack the Giant Killer ” might command
the adhesion of mankind.
. Mr. Gladstone refers to the scepticism or indifference
of the working classes. There is an impression that
they have largely lost their hold upon the Christian
creed. But, while admitting that this is to some extent
true, Mr. Gladstone denies that, amongst us, they have
“ lost respect for the Christian religion, or for its
ministers; or that they desire their children to be
brought up otherwise than in the knowledge and
practice of it.” Their perversion simply means that
“their positive, distinct acceptance of the articles of
the Creed, and their sense of the dignity and value of
the Sacred Record, are blunted or effaced.” But this
is a grandiose way of saying that they are neither
Bibliolators nor Christians.
Curiously enough, Mr. Gladstone does' not find this
scepticism or indifference among the “leisured and
better provided, classes.” Surely he must be basking
in a kind of fool’s paradise. It may be that his
acquaintances are chary of troubling him with heterodox
opinions. Even Mr. Morley may eschew Diderot and
Voltaire in conversing with his orthodox chief. Yet it
is clear that educated society is honeycombed with
scepticism. And Mr. Gladstone has an inkling of the
fact. Why else should he refer to “ the wide dis
�The Grand Old Booh.
13
paragement of the Holy Scriptures recently observable
in the surface currents of prevalent opinion” ?
It is, indeed, to rebuke and diminish this “ wide
disparagement” of the Bible that Mr. Gladstone
assumes the role of Defender of the Faith. He
believes this disparagement to be. founded on “ sup
positions ” which are “ erroneous,” and he sums them
up under five heads for the purpose of refutation.
I. That the conclusions of science as to natural objects have
shaken or destroyed the assertions of the early Scriptures with
respect to the origin and history of the world, and of man, its
principal inhabitant.
II. That their contents are in many cases offensive to the
moral sense, and unworthy of an enlightened age.
III. That our race made its appearance in the world in a
condition but one degree above that of the brute creation, and
only by slow and painful but continual progress has brought
itself up to the present level of its existence.
IV. That men have accomplished this by the exercise of
their natural powers; and have nevei' received the special
teaching and authoritative guidance, which is signified under
the name of Divine Revelation.
V. That the more considerable among the different races and
nations of the world have devised, and established from time
to time, their respective religions; and'have in many cases
accepted the promulgation of sacred books, which are to be
considered as essentially of the same character with the Bible.
A sixth “ supposition ” is indicated, namely, that the
Old Testament books are not contemporary records,
but “ comparatively recent compilations from’uncertain
sources.” This has, however, been partially dealt
with already, although, as will be seen .hereafter, Mr.
Gladstone returns to it in a subsequent chapter.
These five “ suppositions,” set forth in extenso, are
what Mr. Gladstone promises to demolish. The wider
.suppositions of Atheism or Agnosticism are “ foreign ”
�14
The Grand Old Book.
to his “ present purpose.” Each of the fatal five has“ a
literature of its own, which may be termed scientific.”
Mr. Gladstone deems it necessary to say, therefore,
that while he hopes his remarks will be “ rational and
true,” they will not be “ systematic and complete, but
popular and partial only.” And, in a certain sense,
the description must be admitted. Mr. Gladstone’s
treatment of destructive criticism and its results is
certainly not “systematic and complete.” But it is
“ popular,” in its resemblance to partisan harangues
on political platforms, where the speaker voices the
prejudices of his audience, and is confident that all his
illogicalities and evasions will be taken in a lenient
spirit. Nor can it be disputed that his treatment is
ct partial.” It is not too much to say that Mr. Glad
stone’s method, apart from his literary style, is that of
the street-corner champions of orthodoxy. He betrays
hardly any acquaintance with the works and the points
of the chief destructive critics. Even Renan’s Histoira
du Peuple d’Israel, a recent and as yet uncompleted
work, at once learned and brilliant, and presenting
some of the best results of Biblical scholarship, is
utterly neglected; while, on the scientific side, suchauthorities as Darwin, Haeckel, Eyell, and Huxley, are
almost absolutely ignored, and appeals are made topurely orthodox authorities like Dana and Dawson,
without the least suggestion to the half-educated reader
that his ignorance and credulity are thus egregiously
imposed upon. This may, indeed, be the sort of
argumentation which is suited to party politics; but
who will seriously defend it as anything but repre
hensible when applied to the subject of the present
discussion?
How far Mr. Gladstone’s purpose is served by these
�The Grand Old Book,
15
methods we shall see as we proceed.
Meanwhile
we must notice a point in his view of the spread
of scepticism in our midst. Mr. Gladstone is struck
by the fact that the “poor” who first welcomed
Christianity are now so indifferent to it. He says
it “ affords much matter for meditation.”
But
he has himself unconsciously solved the problem.
He remarks that there were few obstacles in the
way of the poor becoming Christians in the primitive ages.
“They had by contrast,” he says,
“ more palpable interests in the promise of the life tocome, as compared with the possession of the life that
now is.” Precisely so. They eagerly embraced the
fine promises of Christianity, and, as happiness seemed
impossible for them on earth, they welcomed the
prospect of it in heaven. Those who mourned and
those who hungered were to be comforted and filled—
in the sweet by-and-bye. But the “ poor ” have found,
out the trick; and now, instead of yearning for the
celestial shadow, they are trying to secure the earthly
substance. On the other hand, the wealthy are averse
to change. Many of them have as much “ faith ” as
the present writer, but they support Christianity as
the strongest conservative agent. They resemble old
Lord Eldon, who denied being a pillar of the Church,
and exclaimed, “No, I am a buttress, I prop it up
outside.”
Here we leave Mr. Gladstone standing on his im
pregnable rock. It has been disintegrated by all sorts
of mines and explosives during the past century;
Science, scholarship, morality, and common sense have
all been busily at work; and, although there is no great,
outward solution of continuity, and the rock will last
Mr. Gladstone’s time, the collapse is approaching.
�16
The Grand Old Boole.
.
*
Mi Gladstone hears the rumbling and cracking, or he
would not strive to reassure the faithful; and those
who are familiar with the agencies at work know that
the “ impregnable rock ” bears within itself all the
elements of ruin. Even its temporary defence must
be attempted on other principles than Mr. Gladstone’s.
A writer like the Rev. Charles Gore, the editor of
Lux Mundi, sees very clearly that a new theory of
Inspiration is the only means whereby the growing
dissatisfaction with large portions of the letter of the
Bible, even within the most orthodox Churches, can be
wholly or partially allayed. By thus altering their
theory so as to cover almost any amount of difficulty,
the more astute champions of the Bible may weather
their present embarrassments, although their security
can only be short-lived. But Mr. Gladstone’s method
■of defence is perfectly futile, and could never have
been selected if he had possessed a fuller acquaintance
with the real state of the controversy.
�17
The Grand Old Book.
CHAPTER II.
THE
CREATION
STORY,
The Creation Story is a subject which from the Chris
tian point of view is of the highest importance. This
story stands at the very threshold of the Bible, and if
it be a fiction it inevitably throws discredit on all that
follows. But this is not all, nor even the worst. The
story of Creation is inseparably connected with the
story of the Fall. They stand or perish together.
And if the Fall is to be regarded as a myth, what
becomes of Christianity? The Christian scheme of
salvation is unintelligible without the antecedent
doctrine of the fall of man. It is the Garden of Eden
which gives meaning to Gethsemane, the curse upon
Adam and Eve which gives meaning to the tragedy of
Calvary. Without the Fall, and the ensuing curse, the
Atonement is a baseless dogma, and the Incarnation,
the Crucifixion, and the Resurrection are but tre
mendous mistakes.
The Creation Story opens the first of the five books
commonly thought to have been written by Moses,
although, as Professor Max Muller says, no scholar
believes anything of the kind.
*
Even Mr. Glad
stone himself, who honestly disclaims any preten
sion to Biblical scholarship, does not venture to
speak of Moses as an author. He designates the
writer of the Creation Story as “ the Mosaist or the
Mosaic writer,” and thus leaves the whole question of
Natural Religion, p. 56.
B
�18
The Grand Old Book.
the date and authorship of the Book of Genesis to
settle itself as it can. Nevertheless he speaks again
and again of the Creation Story being a revelation to
“ primitive man.” This is a very misleading phrase.
Some readers will think it means Adam; or Cain,
Abel, Seth and the rest of the first human family,
according to the ethnology of Genesis. Others will
think it means the family of Noah, and still others the
Jews of the Exodus, while another class of readers will
think of the “ primitive man ” of Darwinism, and
wonder whether Mr. Gladstone fancies the Creation
Story was “ revealed ” when our far-off ancestors were
dodging the mammoth and disputing snug quarters
with cave bears and hyenas. It is difficult to believe
that so acute a man as Mr. Gladstone did not catch a
glimpse of this perplexity. We cannot help thinking
he felt the phrase to be a very convenient one, as sug
gesting a good deal without affirming anything, and
helping his argument without involving the necessity of
defence.
Suggestion, however, was not enough; it had to be
supported by something positive, for the antiquity of
the Creation Story is indispensable to Mr. Gladstone’s
argument. But the difficulties of such a theory are
immense. Supposing the story to have been “ revealed ”
to Moses, whether written down by him or transmitted
orally, it is astonishing that not a mention of it occurs
in the whole of the Jewish scriptures outside the Book
of Genesis, with the single exception of the Fourth
Commandment. This first piece of revelation, this
primary message of the divine Father to his children,
this record on which the whole institution of the
Sabbath jfis said to have been based, was treated by
Hebrew writers, century after century, with an un
�The Grand Old Book.
19
broken conspiracy of silence. Such is apparently the
fact, and it is too hard for flesh and blood to credit.
Mr. Gladstone sees this, and he argues that “ there are
signs in subsequent portions of the volume that this
tale of the Creation was regarded by the Hebrews as
authoritative and important.” But what are these
“ signs33
Surely they are the most marvellous
“ signs33 that ever signified nothing. Mr. Gladstone
finds them in Job xxxviii. and Psalms civ. and cxlviii.
He discreetly refrains from quotation, and we will follow
his example, though for a very different reason. We
merely ask the candid reader to turn to those chapters,
and see whether he can find the remotest allusion to
the Creation Story without putting on Mr. Gladstone’s
spectacles.
Mr. Gladstone may be a master of fence, but he
cannot resist the pressure of facts. The Jews were
never an inventive people, and it is now established
beyond dispute that their cosmogony was borrowed.
Some of it was the common possession of the Semitic
people, but most of it was derived from Babylon,
whence the Jews also took their weights and measures,
their period of work and rest, and other basic elements
of their post-exile civilisation. That something is due
to the shaping of Hebrew writers we are far from dis
puting ; but the Creation Story, the Fall, and even the
Flood were all writ large in the stone records of mighty
empires long before they were embodied in the Jewish
scriptures by an hierarchy which was able to pass off
new teachings as the voice of antiquity.
Not only does Mr. Gladstone fail to advance a single
valid argument in favor of the Creation Story, but he
.practically treats it as a fiction. He remarked some
time. ago,, in his discussion with Huxley, that the Story
�20
The Grand Old Book.
was not a treatise but a sermon. Since then he has
been working out this line of defence, and he now dis
closes it in a state of perfection. “ The conveyance of
scientific instruction,” he says, would not have been “ a
reasonable object for the Mosaic writer to pursue'’'’—a
statement with which we agree, for the Mosaic writer
had none to convey. His object, it appears, was two
fold. He did not say so, but apparently Mr. Gladstone
has some occult information as to his intentions. First,
he wished—or God wished through him—“ to teach
man his proper place in creation in relation to its several
orders.” Secondly, he wished to “ make him know and
feel what was the beautiful and noble home that he
inhabited, and with what a fatherly and tender care
Providence had prepared it for him to dwell in.”
Let us examine these reasons. We will take the
second first. The Mosaist’s object—that is, if the
story be inspired, God’s object—was to show how the
world had been prepared by the Heavenly Father as a
dwelling-place for his children. Now it seems to us
that Mr. Gladstone has lost all historic perspective
in this statement. The earth is at present very largely
made fit for man to live in, although, even in an old
country like India, thousands of persons yearly fall
victims to tigers and snakes. But so far as the earth
is made fit, it is perfectly clear that man himself has
done the work. He felled the forests, drained the
swamps, tamed the buffaloes, broke the wild horse,
domesticated the wolf, and bred sheep from a savage
stock. The Genesaic story of the animals passing in
meek review before Adam as the lord of creation, is a
pretty picture, but a pure work of imagination.
Primitive man was “ monarch of all he surveyed ” only
while he looked upon his squaw and his offspring, and
�The Grand Old Book.
21
the rough walls of the natural cave, or artificial hole
in the ground, where his highness lay sheltered from
his prowling subjects, who were seeking to dine on his
regal person. His faculties were sharpened through a
wild and terrible struggle for existence, and finally he
triumphed; but surely it is idle, in face of these facts,
to talk of the “ fatherly and tender care of Providence”
in preparing his dwelling-place.
Even if the facts were otherwise, it is strange that
God should have given this lesson as to his “ fatherly
and tender care ” for his children to a few semi-savage
and fanatical Jews, who kept the “ revelation ” strictly
to themselves, and never imparted it to the mighty
civilisations of Egypt, India, Phoenicia, Carthage,
Persia, and Assyria, to say nothing of the more modern
Greece and Rome.
But if the Mosaist’s first object was unhappy, his
second object was absurd. Man did not need a revela
tion to teach him “ his proper place in creation.” He
did not require to be told that he was superior to fishes.
Knowledge and vanity assured him that he was at the
top of the scale, although his “ dominion” was exceed
ingly precarious. When Ovid was versifying the old
Pythagorean philosophy he naturally placed the creation
of man at the end of the process.
A creature of a more exalted kind
Was wanting yet; and then was Man designed:
Conscious of thought, of more capacious breast,
For empire formed, and fit to rule the rest.
*
We utterly dissent,- therefore, from Mr. Gladstone’s
view that “ primitive man ” needed to or did receive
a conception, thoroughly faithful in broad outline, of
what his Maker had been about on his behalf.” Nor
* Ovid, Metamorphoses, bk. i. Dryden’s Translation.
r
«
�22
The Grand Old Book.
can we read without a smile his assertion that “ the
simplest phrases.” were so necessary “that the Maker
condescended “ even to represent himself as resting ”
after his work. The Hebrew, we understand, really
says that he “ took breath.”* This rendering is a still
more “ simple phrase ” than resting, and still more
illustrates the condescension of the Maker.
Following out his theory, Mr. Gladstone regards the
six days of creation, not as days of twenty-four hours,
nor as geological periods, but as “ Chapters in the
History of the Creation.” True, the text speaks of
“ evening and morning ” in connection with every day,
but that is only a rhetorical device to emphasise the
distinction between the chapters ; and just as day does
not mean day, so evening and morning do not mean
evening and morning. Mr. Gladstone, however, over
looks a very important point. Is there any evidence
that the Jews ever looked upon the “ days ” of Creation
in this light ? Did they not understand the expression
literally? Was it not the literal sense which gave its
sanction to the fourth commandment? Are we to
presume that God “ condescended ” to use “ simple and
familiar ” language for the sake of a handful of ancient
Jews, at the cost of misleading populous and more
civilised nations in future ages, or was this a necessity
of Almighty Wisdom ?f
* Sir William Domville, The. Sabbath, p. 54.
t The old commentators, such as Gill, Clarke, and Patrick, honestly
took the Bible to mean what it says. They had no doubt that God made
the universe in six days of twenty-four hours. Bishop Pearson, in a
work which is still a standard in our universities, dated the creation
“ probably within one hundred and thirty generations of men, most cer-*
tainly within not more than six, or at farthest seven, thousand years ago ”
{Exposition of the Creed, vol. i., p. 121). Dr. Kalisch, a Hebrew scholar
of the highest standing, declares that “ to interpret the term day as a
period, or an indefinite epoch,” is “inadmissible,” for “the metaphorical
use of the word is rendered impossible by the repeated phrase ‘and
evening was and morning was.’ ” {Commentary on Genesis'). .
�The Grand Old Booh.
23
Mr. Gladstone makes the extraordinary assertion
that “ no moral mischief ensues because some have
supposed the days of creation to be pure solar days of
twenty-four hours.” Certainly the belief in a literal
six days' creation does not prompt a man to pick
pockets or commit adultery. But is there no “ moral
mischief ” in hindering the progress of science, upon
which so much of our well-being depends ? Is there
no moral mischief in the persecution of those who are
afterwards seen to be our benefactors ? Was there
no moral mischief in the intimidation of Galileo ?
Was there no moral mischief in the murder of Giordano
Bruno ? Was there no moral mischief in the early
prejudices of Sir Charles Lyell against what he subse
quently recognised as truth, or in the insults heaped
upon him when he proclaimed it to the world ? Was
there no moral mischief in the bigotry with which the
clergy as well as their fanatical dupes treated the
teachings of Darwin 1 Is there no moral mischief in
wasting the working man’s precious day of leisure,
every week, in obedience to a Sabbatarian law which
is founded on the literal Story of Creation ?
We would also observe that Mr. Gladstone is
extremely vague, and, in so far as he is clear, inaccu
rate, in his remarks on the Sabbath. “ It seems also
probable,” he says, continuing his lessons of the
Mosaist, “ that the Creation Story was intended to
have a special bearing on the great institution of the
day of rest, or Sabbath, by exhibiting it in the manner
of an object lesson.” Now in the whole of the early
Jewish history there is no trace of a Sabbath. We
find it in the Mosaic Law, which is a post-exile con
coction, but not in the annals of the Judges and Kings.
Indeed, the very reference in the Fourth Command
�24
The Grand Old Booh.
ment to “ the stranger within thy gates,” shows that it
was not delivered to desert nomads, but to a people
settled down in Palestine and dwelling in walled and
fortified cities. For these reasons, or partly for these
reasons, Paley maintains that God “ blessed the seventh
day and sanctified it ” by a sort of historical anticipation.
But Mr. Gladstone would have us believe that “ Assyrian
researches ” have revealed traces of some primitive
“institution or command.” This is, however, the
veriest perverseness. What Assyrian researches have
shown is that the number seven was held sacred by the
masters of the Jewrs, and that they had a Sabbath, or
day of rest, long before the chosen people. Here again
the Jews were not inventors, but borrowers; and the
primeval sanctification of the Sabbath is one of the
many impostures of their priestly annalists.
The Egyptians had a periodic day of rest; namely,
one day in every ten ; but it appears that they were
also acquainted with the seven-days division of time.
The Assyrians, the Romans, and other ancient nations
had likewise their periods of rest and work. And
why? For the simple reason that the leaders of a
civilisation based upon slavery discovered the necessity
of a periodic rest to the laborer. Without it his
energies decayed. And that the time of rest, whatever
it was, should be associated with mythical events, was
only natural in a society in which every part of life
was under a religious sanction.
It is also clear that the sacredness of the number
seven, in Assyria as in scores of other parts of the
world, sprang out of natural reasons. Moon-worship
precedes sun-worship because man’s attention is excited
by the changeable rather than the regular. It was
discovered that the full lunation occupied twenty-eight
�The Grand Old Book.
25-
days. That number was halved, and the result was
fourteen. That number was halved again, and the
result was seven. But this number could not be
halved, or divided in any way; it was indivisible and
mysterious, and therefore sacred. Then there were
the seven planets, from which the days were named,
and this not only doubled but squared the sacredness
of the number seven. But behind this there is some
thing older and more vital. The covering of the
generative organs is often neglected by the males
among savages, but scarcely ever among the females.
That covering was the beginning of decency, and it
arose from the fact of menstruation. Now the sexual
periodicities throughout the whole animal world,
including the human race, run in seven days or
multiples of seven days. Let this truth, therefore, be
connected with the indivisible quarter of the moon’s
total phases, and the number of the planets, and you
have an importance, a mystery, and therefore a sacred
ness attaching to the number seven, which could never
attach to another number. This is the reason why the
number seven appears and reappears in all religious
systems. It is found among savages, and it asserts its
ancient and august claims in the teachings of Theosophy,
which talks learnedly, but after all superstitiously, of
the sevenfold nature of man. Thus religion is like the
mythical snake of eternity. Extremes meet, and the
head and the tail are united.
There is still another aspect of the question. It is
shrewdly observed by Renan, in his Histoire du Peuple
d’Israel, that the Sabbath could not have arisen among
nomads. Except when they shift their tents, and
travel to fresh pastures, they have nothing to do but
to sit and watch their flocks and herds. One day is
�26
The Grand Old Book.
exactly like another, and a day of rest would be unin
telligible. It is obvious, therefore, that the story of
the primeval sanctification of the Sabbath, and its
injunction in the Mosaic Law, belong to a much later
period than the Exodus. They belong, in short, to the
post-exile period. Every fact supports this theory,
and there is not a single fact which contradicts it.
Now let us return to the centre of Mr. Gladstone’s
argument. Everything turns upon his convenient
theory that the six days of creation are not six literal
days, but six “ chapters in the history of the creation.”
By this means he seeks to overcome the difficulty of
the fact that the order of creation in Genesis does not
properly correspond with the teachings of Evolution.
The Mosaic writer, it appears, anticipated the modern
fashion of writing history, of which we have the first
great example in Gibbon. His order is not strictly
chronological, but in accord with his subject matter.
Thus “ in point of chronology his chapters overlay.”
So that, if light exists three days before the creation
ef the sun, the explanation is that the Mosaist simply
puts them in different chapters, not for chronological
reasons, but for a special purpose. And what was that
purpose ? Mr. Gladstone says it was “ to convey
moral and spiritual training.” He goes to the length of
saying that “ the conveyance of scientific instruction ”
would not have been “ a reasonable object for the
Mosaic writer to pursue.” An ordinary person might
suppose the Deity capable of imparting scientific
instruction as well as moral instruction, and the Jews
capable of receiving the one as well as the other. Mr.
Gladstone’s theory implies a very serious limitation of
God’s power, or a no less serious misconception of the
causes of human progress. Is not science as necessary
�The Grand Old Booh.
27
as morality ? Is there much use in desiring the
welfare of mankind without the knowledge of how to
promote it ? Will a good-hearted doctor do a patient
any service if he is lacking in skill ? Buckle, indeed,
contended that civilisation was entirely owing to the
advance of the intellect, and very much the same con
tention was advanced by Macaulay. But here is Mr.
Gladstone arguing that “ moral and spiritual training ”
is most necessary, while mental training is so unim
portant that the Deity wisely refrained from taking
the trouble to assist us in that respect.
We have already said that Mr. Gladstone’s inter
pretation of the “ six days ” as “ six chapters ” is
arbitrary. Neither the chosen people, nor their in
spired teachers, ever understood their cosmogony in
that sense. They existed before the days of antagonism
between the Bible and Science, when new meanings
have to be discovered in every part of God’s Word.
They took the language of Genesis, as the Church of
England presents its Articles, in the plain, grammatical
sense of the words. It is too late to rescue the Mosaist
in Mr. Gladstone’s manner. The “ six chapters ”
theory is worthy of the old parliamentary hand, but he
himself perceives its inadequacy, or why does he
■endeavor to show that the chronological order of
creation is after all in harmony with the conclusions of
modern science?
Will it be believed that after
pressing his super-subtle argument through thick and
thin ; after declaring that day is not day, and morning
and evening not morning and evening; after claiming
that the Mosaist sacrificed chronology for the sake of
shaping his chapters so as to convey a moral and
spiritual and not a scientific lesson; will it be believed
that, after all this, Mr. Gladstone goes on to argue
�28
The Grand Old Book.
for so close an agreement between Genesis and Science
that nothing short of inspiration is adequate to account
for it ? Yet that is precisely what he does. “ The
Creation Story in Genesis,” he asserts, “ appears to
stand in such a relation to the facts of natural science
so far as they are ascertained, as to warrant our con
cluding that they first proceeded, in a manner above
the ordinary manner, from the Author of the visible
creation.” Or as he expresses it in his concluding
sentences, iC to warrant and require thus far the con
clusion that the Ordainer of Nature, and the Giver or
Guide of the Creation Story, are one and the same.”
This is clearly a complete change of front. The
“ six chapters ” theory is virtually discarded as useless,
and Mr. Gladstone proceeds to defend the scientific
character of Genesis. The Creation Story was a
scientific lesson after all, only it was skilfully disguised.
Moses anticipated Darwin; in fact, Moses is the
original author and Darwin is only the commentator.
Such is the true character of Mr. Gladstone’s theory,
and in arguing it he flounders, as might be expected,
in a morass of bad science, bold assumption, and wild
exegesis.
According to Genesis, the earth was at first “ with
out form and void,” a description hard to realise, and
“the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Now Mr. Gladstone is aware that “ the Hebrew word
for earth means earth, and the word used for water
never means anything but water.” How then is this
to be explained away? Why easily. The Hebrew
word always means water, but the Mosaist meant
something else. He meant that the world was at first
fluid, and as the people he wrote for only knew of one
extensive fluid, namely water, he called it water to suit
�The Grand Old Book.
29
their comprehension. But in reality he was adum
brating the nebular hypothesis. That, at any rate, is
what Mr. Gladstone argues, and we will not venture
to refute him. We can only stare with astonishment
at his coolness—not to use a harsher word; and we
suspect that the writers of the Creation Story, if they
could live again and read Mr. Gladstone’s article,
would be quite as astonished as we are.
*
The Mosaist, it seems, not only sketched (in a very
occult manner) the nebular theory, but showed how
“ the chaos passed into cosmos, or, in other’words, how
confusion became order, medley became sequence,
seeming anarchy became majestic law, and horror
softened into beauty.” But chaos is not a doctrine of
science. It belongs to the old Pagan cosmogonies.
The laws of nature obtained in the fiery cloud whirled
off from the sun precisely as they do nowpt has cooled
down into a solid planet. According to Mr. Gladstone’s
science, if we may reason from analogy, there’is cosmos
in a cubic inch of cold water, and chaos in"a cubic foot
of steam.
With regard to the existence of light three days
before the sun, Mr. Gladstone tells us ’that it simply
means (observe how he knows what the Mosaist meant
but did not say) that the sun became visible in that
* It is amusing to turn from Mr. Gladstone’s labored argument that
water should only be regarded as fluid, to an old sermon by Archbishop
Tillotson on “The Being of God Demonstrated by Reason.” Tillotson,
of course, had no fear of the nebular astronomy before his eyes. He points
out that Thales was “ the first who asserted that water was the begin
ning of all things.” He brings in Aristotle as saying that the gods were
represented as swearing by Styx, because water was supposed to be the
principle of all things. But the clinching proof is that “ The Brachmans,
Indian philosophers, did also agree that the world was made of water ;
which exactly corresponds with Moses's account of the creation." Mr.
Gladstone finds a very different idea in Moses, because the exigencies of
■science have changed since the days of Tillotson. Thus, as Luther said,
the Bible is a nose of wax, which every man twists as he pleases.
�30
The Grand Old Book.
stage. The earth’s photosphere, or something, cleared
away, and “ the visibility of the sun was established ’*
—when there was no one to see it I The “ light-power’7
became “ concentrated by the operation of the rotatory
principle,” and —— But how on earth are we to go
on 1 Our gravity is not equal to Mr. Gladstone’s.
We require an interval for laughter.
It must not be supposed, however, that Mr. Glad
stone is broaching a novelty in this far-fetched exegesis.
Nearly fifty years ago the same vagaries were ridiculed
and corrected by Priaulx, who wrote as follows on the
“light” which Jehovah called from the primitive
darkness:—
“ What this light might be, has naturally exercised the
ingenuity of those learned commentators, who are as familiar
with the creation and the counsels of God, as though they had
been present at the one, and were often called upon to take
a share in the other. With some this first light is but a dim
glimmering, a sort of twilight or darkness visible ; with others
it is the bright Shekinah or the glorious presence; while with
a third party it is that light, run wild probably, which is
hereafter to be collected into sun, moon, and stars. It is a
light without a sun,—so much we know ; and such a light both
Menu and Zoroaster tell of. According to the one, Brahme
has but to appear and the gloom, is dispelled; and according to
the other, light is the dwelling place of Ormuzd, co-etemal
with him; Ormuzd in fact himself is light. Moses held then
on this point certainly no singular, and probably none but
popular, opinions.”*
Priaulx’s book is a monument of learning, patience,
candor, and sagacity. Had Mr. Gladstone studied it,
or even read it cursorily, it would have saved him from
many blunders and absurd speculations—and the book
was written fifty years ago 1 The fact is, apparently,
* Priaulx, Questiones Mosaics, pp. 14, 15.
�The Grand Old Booh.
31
that Mr. Gladstone has taken a brief for the Bible,
and argues it like a special pleader. He betrays no
knowledge of the leaders of scepticism and their
writings, but seems merely to have dipt into orthodox
writers like Dana, Stokes, and Dawson, for points that
would tell sufficiently with the jury before whom he is
pleading—a jury which believes his side of the case
already, and does not need to be convinced but only to
be reassured.
But let us return to the Mosaist and his story.
Modern science has told us the truth about the stars.
Outside our solar system there are other and mightier
systems. But it was natural for the Jews to regard
the stars as dots of light. The sun and the moon
were the “ two great lights/' and the stars were thrown
in with an “ also.” But “ relativity is the basis of the
narrative,” and the Mosaist wrote like an ignoramus,
not because he was not as wise as Herschel, but
because his readers were too thick-headed to learn the
truth. He was like the gentleman in the play, who
“ could an’ he would.” At least this is a fair summary
of Mr. Gladstone’s argument.
The Mosaist also tells us that not only grasses, but
the later fruit trees, grew before the sun shone upon
the earth. The nonsense was exposed by Professor
*
Huxley, but Mr. Gladstone has not profited by that
discussion. Assuming that the sun, in the Creation
Story, can be shuffled in before the earth, and that
our planet was veiled in vapor, he argues that “ there
were light and heat, atmosphere with its conditions
of moist and dry, soil prepared to do its work in
* Professor Huxley says it is “the apparently plain teaching of
botanical palaeontology that grasses and fruit trees originated long sub
sequently to animals ” {Nineteenth Century, Dec. 1S85).
�32
*
The Grand Old Booh.
nutrition,” and so the Mosaist is saved by the skin of
his teeth. But the argument is really too barefaced.
Fruit trees are not a part of the world’s primitive
fauna. They are probably latei’ than man himself.
Mr. Gladstone strains his faculties in vain to recon
cile the Creation Story with paloeontology.
He
cannot work in reptiles and marsupials, so he says
they did not come within the Mosiast’s “moral and
spiritual ” purpose. Then there is the difficulty that
fish and fowl are created on the same day, while
geology shows they are separated by millions of
years. But day does not mean day. The Mosaist
simply puts them in the same chapter, and he puts
tho fowl after the fish, and that is the right order 1 Of
course it is the right order; but how much inspiration
was required to enable a Jew to see that fowl were
superior to fish in the scale of existence ?
After all this special pleading, the credit of the
Mosaist being saved at every point by incessant
assumption and forced logic, Mr. Gladstone advances
to his triumphant conclusion. The Creation Story
is a perfect miracle of scientific anticipation, and if
God did not write it who did ? But it will be
observed that the old parliamentary hand is silent as
to the creation of man. “ As the objector is silent,”
he says, “ I remain silent also.” The objector silent,
indeed 1 Whatever objector has Mr. Gladstone in
his mind? The account of Adam and Eve is the
most difficult, and the most ludicrous, part of the
Creation Story. Up to that point the writer pre
serves a certain grandeur, however mistaken ; but the
narrative of Adam’s production from dust, and Eve's
production from one of his ribs, to say nothing of the
farce of the Fall, and the six thousand years’ chronology,
�The Grand Old Booh.
33
is positively food for mirth. For nine years the great
Darwin has lain in his grave, yet Mr. Gladstone writes
as though the Newton of biology had never been born.
Still Mr. Gladstone’s “ silence ” is not without its
eloq uence. It shows that the champion of the Creation
Story must avoid Darwinism. In the light of that
great doctrine, which has revolutionised the world of
thought, the Creation Story is an old fable, the drama
of Eden a Semitic fiction, the Fall a fallacy, and the
foundation of the Christian creed a mere fragment of
oriental mythology.
Mr. Gladstone has an astonishing postcript to his
chapter on the Creation Story. Assuming what is
opposite to the teaching of Evolution, and disregarding
the many traces of Jewish polytheism in late portions
of the Old Testament, he argues that it was the
Creation Story which, a thousand years after Moses,
placed “ the chosen people in a state of security from
this insidious mischief.” Genesis set God outside his
creation, distinct, unapproachable, supreme; and this
laid a firm foundation for the Incarnation. But this
is really arguing backwards. It is deducing the truth
of the Creation Story from the doctrine of the Atone
ment. Surely Mr. Gladstone must see the illegitimacy
of such an appeal, if he is making it to unprejudiced
minds. Probably, also, he will see on reflection that
the Semitic mind, mainly owing to its environment,
has a general tendency to Monotheism. Christianity,
when permeated with Aryan thought, set up a new
Polytheism under the disguise of the Trinity, and
fortified it with a subordinate pantheon of saints;
while it was left for Mohammedism, which like
Judaism is a Semitic faith, to hold up the banner of
the one indivisible God.
o
�34
The Grand Old Book.
CHAPTER III.
THE FALL OF MAN.
Mr. Gladstone’s third chapter is disappointing. He
fulfils none of the promises with which he set out. No
attempt is made to answer the sceptic’s objections.
We have simply a theological essay, restating the
orthodox view of the Bible, and abounding in evasions
and assumptions. A certain pomposity of style, familiar
to Mr. Gladstone’s readers, gives his article a fictitious
air of importance; but in substance it is remarkably
poor, and its argumentation is such that if it were
displayed on any other topic it would expose him
to derision. What else, indeed, can be said of one
who, so many years after Darwin’s death, writes
as though Darwin had never lived; of one who, in
an age in which Evolution has overrun every field
of research and speculation, writes as though Evolution
had never been heard of? If, on the other hand, Mr.
Gladstone knows something of Evolution, and simply
ignores it, he might give points in ludicrousness to the
proverbial ostrich with its head in the desert sands.
Why on earth—we say it in all seriousness—does not a
confidential friend break through the ring of flatterers,
and save a statesman, in whose reputation we are all
interested, from himself and the editors with cheque
books who are anxious to trade upon his name ? Mr.
John Morley could hardly do it; his heterodoxy would
throw suspicion on his advice. But there is Professor
Stuart. He knows a thing oi' two, and his scepticism
�The Grand Old Booh.
35
is only ankle-deep. Could he not contrive to drop a
whisper into Mrs. Gladstone’s ear, and even in a round
about way spare us the necessity of laughing at one we
would fain reverence ? For risibility is an imp who
will not be baulked; when he scents antics he will
take a ticket for the spectacle.
The very opening of Mr. Gladstone’s third chapter is
what is vulgarly called “ a caution.” In face of all he
has written before he says it is “ likely that the Creation
Story has come down from the beginning.” He even
talks of “ the corroborative legends of Assyria.-” Nay,
he declares, with a wonderful equanimity, which we
are unable to emulate, that “ we now trace the pro
bable origins of oui' Sacred Books far back beyond
Moses and his time.” In other words, Mr. Gladstone,
at this time of day, fancies the antediluvian patriarchs
were actual and not mythical personages, who had the
Creation Story revealed to them, and passed it down
to their descendants.
*
Despite the fact, too, that all
savages—and the ancient Jews were savages—trace
their descent from a common ancestor, for the simple
reason that they cannot understand any but a blood
relationship; despite the fact that Romulus, the
mythical founder of Rome, for instance, is now seen to
be as real a character as Tamoi of the Brazilians, or
Unkulunkulu of the Zulus f; Mr. Gladstone takes
Abraham quite seriously, regards his “ call ” as a fact
* The Principal of Pusey House, the Rev. Charles Gore, who is better
informed and more sagacious on this matter than Mr. Gladstone, gives
up (practically) the historical character of all the Bible narrative before
the time of Abraham. He asks whether the “ earlier narratives ” are not
“ of the nature of myth,” and whether ‘‘ those great inspirations about
the origin of things ” are not “ conveyed to us in that form of myth or
allegorical picture, which is the earliest mode in which the mind of man
apprehended truth.”—See article on “ The Holy Spirit and Inspiration.”
in Lux Mundi, p. 357.
t Tylor, Primitive. Culture, vol. i., pp. 399-405.
�36
The Grand Old Book.
like that of the last clergyman who had a call to a
richer living, and bravely declares that “ Of all great
and distinctive chapters in the history of the human
race we have here perhaps the greatest and the most
distinctive.” Why, the very circumcision which
Jehovah fixed as his special brand upon the Jews,
beginning with Abraham, is older than the earliest
trace of the Jews in history. It was practised on
religious grounds by the priestly caste in Egypt. It
was common among the Semites, of whom the Jews
are a branch. It has been found in various parts of
the world that had no communication with each other,
such as South Africa, the South Pacific Islands, and
Mexico. Jehovah’s trade mark was a plagiarism, a
violation of an old patent, and he would have been non
suited in any action he took to assert his exclusive rights.
But let us come to Mr. Gladstone’s account of the
Fall. He starts with setting up an “ Adamic race,”
of whom we suppose he implies that Adam was the
first progenitor. Now the science of ethnology is
pretty well established, but its records will be searched
in vain for any Adamic race. Mr. Gladstone has
developed this race from the depths of his inner con
sciousness. Elsewhere he speaks of the Fall as “ intro
ducing us to man in his first stage of existence—a stage
not of savagery but of childhood.” Such a remark is
childish. There never was such a stage of humanity.
Not childhood, but sheer savagery, was the original state
of every people in history.
*
Mr. Gladstone may talk
* “The evidence that all civilised nations are the descendants of
barbarians, consists, on the one side, of clear traces of their former low
condition in still-existing customs, beliefs, language, etc.,- and on the
other side, of proofs that savages are independently able to raise them
selves a few steps in the scale of civilisation, and have actually thus
risen.” Darwin, Descent of Man, p. 146.
�The Grand Old Book.
37
as he pleases, but on this question he is no greater
authority than the man in the street. Behind history
lies anthropology, and the verdict of anthropology is
decisive. Man is of animal origin. He was neither
made from earth nor dropped from the skies. This is
proved. Even Dr. Wallace can no longer withhold
his assent. Despite himself he now admits that the
evidence for man’s “ descent from some ancestral form
common to man and the anthropoid apes ” is “ over
whelming and conclusive. ”* Thus the Adamic race,
and the primitive state “ not of savagery but of
childhood,” are both figments of theological imagination.
They would vanish to-morrow if they were not main
tained by the Black Army in the interest of their
dogmas.
Mr. Gladstone sums up the purport of the Old
Testament as “ a history of sin and redemption.” Of
course the second depends upon the first. Man is an
awful sinner, a fallen being. That is the first state
ment of Christianity, and it is a falsehood. Evolution
proves the ascent, not the descent, of man; that he
has risen from a low estate to a high one, and from
small things to great. On the other hand, the least
knowledge of human nature shows us that man is not
half as black as the parsons paint him. It is absurd
to talk of “ the preponderance of moral evil in the
world.” Human society could not exist under such
conditions. Nor is it sensible to ask, “ Are we as a
race whole, or are we profoundly sick?” We are
neither the one nor the other. Man is neithei' an
angel nor a devil. But there is surely a preponderance
of good in his composition. His heart is better than
* Dr. A. R. Wallace, Darwinism, p. 461.
�38
The Grand Old Book.
his head. No doubt there is a sad spectacle for the
philanthropist in the oppressions of the world, for the
honest man in its crimes, for the good man in its vices,
and for the truthful man in its lies and hypocrisies—
after all these millenniums of religion. But what the
world at large does not see, what the newspapers do
not report, is deeper and more common than these
things ; and the homes of the people, where they really
live their lives, are perpetually made fragrant by the
“ little unremembered acts of kindness and of love.”
And sometimes a splendid deed of heroism, wrought by
one great heart, thrills the hearts of millions, expands
our moral horizon, and shames the whining of dastard
priests.
What is sin ? That’ must be answered before we
discuss redemption. Mr. Gladstone calls it “a de
parture from the will of God.” Later on he describes
it more fully as “ a deviation from the order of nature,
a foreign element not belonging to the original creation
of Divine design, but introduced into it by special
causes.”
But how came man to depart from the will of God ?
How can there be a departure from the order of
nature ? Who introduced a foreign element into
God’s creation? What special causes lie outside the
sphere of Omnipotence ? To say that man’s free-will
“ frustrated ” God’s “ attempt ” is to say that God did
not foresee the result of his own action, or that he
deliberately endowed man with a faculty that would lead
him astray. “ Foreign element ” and “ special causes ”
are polite circumlocutions for the Devil. But who
made the Devil ? The only answer is—God. Finally,
therefore, the Christian has to face these dilemmas.
Either God can stop the Devil or he cannot. If he
�The Grand Old Book.
39-
cannot he is not all-powerful, if he will not he is not
all-good. Either God knew the Devil would pervert
Adam or he did not. If he did not, he is deficient in
foresight; if he did, he had no right to be angry at the
inevitable.
Mr. Gladstone speaks of 44 the revolt of man’s lower
nature against its higher elements.” How came there
to be 44 lower elements ” in a divine production ? Higher
and lower can only be explained by evolution. The
lower is the blind animal passion inherited from our
brutish progenitors. The higher is the governing
reason and conscience developed in countless ages of
social growth.
With regard to the story of the Fall of Man in
Genesis, Mr. Gladstone takes a position commonly
called sitting on the fence. He 44 deals with it as a
parable,” but adds 44 I do not mean to make on my own
part any definitive surrender of the form as it stands.”
But the Fall is either history or romance. There can
be no medium. If it be a parable, it is absurd to talk
of it as a fact; if it be a fact, it is idle to talk of it as
a parable.
Adam and Eve are placed in the garden. They are
the work of an Omniscient Designer, but they are
incapable of knowing good from evil. They cannot
appreciate a moral code. God 44 has laid upon them a
law of obedience.” Like stupid, wilful parents he says
44 Don’t do that, because I tell you not to.” He does
not give them a comprehensive view of their duties to
each other. His law is 44 simply a rule of feeding and
not feeding.” He governs them through their stomachs.
What a noble view of our first parents I What a
tribute to the wisdom and goodness of God !
. The law of obedience involves the law of punishment.
�40
The, Grand Old Booh.
In eating what he is told not to—that is, in gratifying
the appetite God gave him—man becomes “ a rebel,”
and is justly punished as such. But is there any justice
in the case ? Is not everything arbitrary ? Man does
what his nature instigates, and God chooses to chastise
him. God is witness, counsel, judge, and executioner,
and gives penal servitude for life for a first offence.
Mr. Gladstone wrastes his time in trying to show the
similarity of punishment and consequence. One is
arbitrary, the other is natural. If I put my hand in
the fire, it burns me. That is consequence. It is
indifferent to morality. There is no discrimination.
The hand may be an honest man’s or a scoundrel’s. If
I think for myself under the Inquisition I am burnt at
the stake. That is punishment. The two may run
parallel, but they have no connection. If I steal I
injure my fellow men and debase my own nature.
That is consequence. If I am found out I am sent to
prison. That is punishment.
Adam and Eve did not injure each other, nor did
they injure God. Consequently they did not sin. A
child does not sin in eating w’hat he is told not to,
unless he knows he is stealing or depriving someone
else of food. He means no harm, and the action does
not deteriorate his nature. Is it not absurd, then, to
affirm that God’s treatment of Adam and Eve is “ in
accordance with the laws of a grand and comprehensive
philosophy ” ? Mr. Gladstone says that sceptical ob
jections to the Fall are “the product of narrower and
shallowei’ modes of thought.”
We reply that his
“ grand and comprehensive philosophy ” overlooks the
most obvious facts.
Mr. Gladstone calls the Fall “ a gigantic drama.”
It seems to us a petty farce. The people who lived in
�The Grand Old Booh.
41
the ages of Miracle Plays took it seriously, but what
educated man of the present age—unless he keeps a
dark room for theology in his brain—can regard it
without smiling? Of course imagination can make
anything gigantic. It can turn a white rag into a
ghost, or a donkey’s head into the Devil. But imagina
tion is powerless to exaggerate when you see the objects
as they are.
Mr. Gladstone’s imagination tells him that the Fall
“ wisely teaches us to look to misused free-will as the
source of all sin, and of all the accompanying misery.”
It is rather cool to assert this in the face of St. Paul,
St. Augustine, Martin Luther and John Calvin; in face
of the Church of England Articles and the West
minster Confession of Faith. If an unbeliever treated
the Bible in this way, putting his own private inter
pretation on every text, heedless of the settled interpre
tation of the Churches, Mr. Gladstone would stigmatise
him as ignorant or insolent. We do not say a man has
no right to his private interpretation. We claim it for
him. But we say that when he is opposed to a great
historic school of interpretation he is bound to give his
reasons. This Mr. Gladstone avoids. He simply
dogmatises. The proper answer, therefore, is to defy
him to show a single allusion to free-will in the story
of the Fall, or a single text in favor of free-will from
Genesis to Revelation.
Let us follow Mr. Gladstone still farther. “ The
original attempt,” he writes, “ to plant a species upon
our planet, who should be endowed with the faculty
of free-will, but should always direct that will to good,
had been frustrated through sin.” How this happened,
or how it could happen if God were all-wise and allpowerful, is not explained. Mr. Gladstone introduces
�42
The Grand Old Booh.
“ sin ” as though it were an entity. Sin is a quality of
actions. To make “ sin ” the cause of actions is an
absurdity. The ultimate question is—why did Adam
go wrong? To that question Mr. Gladstone never
addresses himself.
God’s “ original attempt ” having been “ frustrated ”
—somehow, by somebody—the all-wise and all-powerful
ruler of the universe set about a remedy. His opera
tions were so slow that, fifteen hundred years after
wards, the world was so hopelessly corrupt that he lost
patience and drowned the lot, with the exception of
eight persons, not one of whom was worth saving.
Afterwards the Almighty began to work in a small
way. He chose the most insignificant people on earth,
visited them occasionally, and gave them a little
heavenly illumination. Why he chose the Jews is a
mystery. Mr. Gladstone admits the choice was not
what reason would expect. It was not made on moral
grounds. The Jews were distinctly inferior to the
primitive Greeks, as Mr. Gladstone proves at consider
able length. And finally, when the Redeemer came,
after nearly two thousand years of preparation, the
chosen people crucified him between two thieves, as a
warning to other gentlemen in the same line of busi
ness. Nay more, after the Redemption has been
actively operating for another two thousand years,
there is still “a preponderance of moral evil in the
world.” Thus the Almighty and Omniscient God is
able to make a world and pronounce it “ good,” but
utterly unable to keep it good, or to repair it when it
falls out of order. Indeed the longer he tries to im
prove it the worse it gets. All this is asserted or
implied in Mr. Gladstone’s argument. It is a queer
compliment to God, and a flat contradiction to his
�The Grand Old Booh.
43
attributes. Either God is very weak, or the Devil is
very strong, or man is very “ cussed." We leave Mr.
Gladstone to say which. Meanwhile we must observe
that his exposition and vindication of the story of the
Fall is a shocking example of how devotion to an
inherited creed will make even a great man wallow in
absurdity. Tycho Brahe, the great astronomer, kept
an idiot, and watched his lips for words of inspiration.
Mr. Gladstone, the great statesman, finds infinite
wisdom in an old Jewish story, which is less moral and
entertaining than “ Jack the Giant-Killer.” Not even
the genius of Milton could invest it with grandeur.
He who lavished his sublimity on the inmates of hell,
and his beauty on two unsophisticated human beings in
a lovely garden, turned a prosaic moralist and a
pedantic quibbler in his efforts to “ justify ” the
theology of the Fall.
�44
The Grand Old Booh.
CHAPTER IV.
THE PSALMS.
The poetry of the Old Testament is to be found in
parts of Isaiah and Ezekiel, in the Song of Solomon, in
the Book of Job, which is simply a dramatic poem,
and in the Book of Psalms. The last is a collection
of sacred chants used in the Temple worship. All of
them abound in Chaldee words, which is a proof that
they were at least redacted at a late period of Jewish
*
history.
The ascription of most of them to David is
an arbitrary absurdity. Every scholar is aware that
the superscripture of the Psalms is misleading. Just
as the national collection of Proverbs was ascribed to
Solomon, because of his traditional wisdom, the national
collection of Psalms was (chiefly) ascribed to David,
because of his traditional love of music. But the royal
authorship of these collections is now discarded by
every scholar of the slightest standing.
When and where the various Psalms were written
is not and never will be known. Bleek may think this,
and Canon Cook may think that, with respect to par
ticular portions, but opinion on this subject is little
else than conjecture. It is only a speculation that the
Psalter contains any Davidic element. Mr. Gladstone
is anxious to maintain its antiquity, but it is idle to cite
the “ authority” of this or that orthodox or semi
orthodox critic, while the equal “ authority ” of
heterodox critics may be cited in opposition.
* Rev. Dr. Giles, Hebrew Records, p. 201.
�The Grand Old Book.
45
Certainly, if the historical books of the Old Testa
ment are to be relied upon, David could not have com
posed the finest Psalms. His people were on a level
with the Zulus, and he himself was on a level with
Cetewayo. The finest Psalms were beyond his mental
and moral scope. If his hand is to be traced in the
collection, the murderer of Uriah, the bloody and
remorseless victor of the Ammonites, is most likely to
be detected in the cursing Psalms, for which Mr Glad
stone pens a sophistical defence.
Whether the Psalms are relatively ancient or modern
cannot decide the question of their inspiration. Nor
does it avail to say that they are “ unparalleled,” or
that they are “the prime and paramount manual of
devotion ” to Christians as well as Jews. Christians
have been trained in the use of the Psalms. Yet their
inadequacy for the expression of Christian sentiment
is proved by the vast collections of hymns in use
among the various denominations. On the other
hand, the excellence of the Jews in the composition of
devotional pieces is by no means miraculous. Among
the Greeks and Romans, as Mr. Gladstone observes,,
the “ rise of intellect was the fall of piety.” Such a
calamity did not befall the Jews, There was never a.
“ rise of intellect ” amongst them. Piety was there
fore the exclusive object of their cultivation. They
were without science, art, philosophy, or secular litera
ture ; all of which made [heavy drafts on the mental
powers of the Greeks and Romans. Consequently
the whole of their genius ran in one narrow channel,
and ploughed it deeply. If therefore the Psalms
are “ unparalleled ” there is nothing supernatural in
the fact, unless it is miraculous for a nation to excel in
the one direction to which it bends its whole faculties.
�46
The Grand Old Book.
But, after all, such terms as unparalleled and un
approachable, in these matters, are terms of taste,
sentiment, or prejudice, rather than of scientific pre
cision. Translation, too, counts for a great deal. The
Psalms were translated by masters of simple, vigorous,
poetical English. To compare with the best of them,
a fine passage of the Vedas, or of JEschylus, Sophocles,
Euripides, or Pindar, must be translated by a Max
Muller or a Matthew Arnold. Mr. Gladstone selects
the “ marvellous ” forty-fourth Psalm, and declares it
to be “ lifted as far above the level of any merely
human effort known to us as the flight of the lark,
‘ hard by the sun,’ is lifted above the swallow, when it
foresees the storm and skims the surface of the
ground.” But see how tastes differ, and on what a
narrow ledge of personal preference Mr. Gladstone
builds his towering structure of dogma ! This very
forty-fourth Psalm, which he regards as immeasurably
above all merely human efforts, seems to us distinctly
inferior to many a passage of uninspired literature.
Not to cite Shakespeare—the sovereign soul of this
planet—let us go back to an old Greek and take the
following religious extract:
“ Oh ! that my lot may lead me into the path of holy inno
cence of word and deed, the path which august laws ordain,
laws that in the highest empyrean had their birth, of which
Heaven is the father alone, neither did the race of mortal men
beget them, nor shall oblivion ever put them to sleep. The
power of God is mighty in them, and groweth not old.” *
Undoubtedly the forty-fourth Psalm is more stormy
and popular; but the Greek poet puts intellect and
measure into his piety, and is more edifying and
inspiring. Mr. Gladstone, of course, is entitled to his
* Arnold’s translation, Essays in Criticism, First Series, p. 222.
�The Grand Old Book.
47
preference; but a difference of taste is hardly the
ground for a supernatural distinction.
•
“ John Bright has told me,” Mr. Gladstone says,
“ that he would be content to stake upon the Book of
Psalms, as it stands, the great question whether there
is or is not a Divine Revelation. It was not to him
conceivable how a work so widely severed from all the
known productions of antiquity, and standing upon a
level so much higher, could be accounted for except by
a special and extraordinary aid calculated to produce
special and extraordinary results.”
John Bright never expressed himself in that way.
But supposing he communicated the substance of this
paragraph to Mr. Gladstone, what in reality does it
prove ? John Bright was nurtured on the Bible and
Milton. What was his acquaintance with “ all the
known productions of antiquity ” ? Did he ever read
the Vedas, the Babylonian Hymns, the Egyptian Book
of the Dead, or the Greek poets ? He had little taste
for Shakespeare, and he praised some very mediocre
versifiers of his own generation. Perhaps he was “ a
very capable judge of the moral and religious elements
in any case,” but who in a state of sanity would accept
his dictum as to the inspiration of a particular writing ?
Submit the Psalms to a Hindu and he will tell you
they are human compositions. He is not to be imposed
upon by such writings. He knows what is inspired.
He has heard more convincing arguments in favor of
the inspiration of the Vedas than any Mr. Gladstone
offers on behalf of the Psalms.
“As soon as the Vedic religion became systematised, and
had to be defended against the doubts of friends and foes, the
Brahmans elaborated an apologetic philosophy which seems to
me unsurpassed in subtlety and acuteness by any other defence
�48
The Grand Old Booh.
of a divinely-inspired book. The whole of the Veda was
represented as divine in its origin, and therefore beyond the
reach of doubt. It was not to be looked on as the work of
men, but only as seen by inspired poets.”*
The fact is that Mr. Gladstone will only prove the
inspiration of the Psalms to those who are already
convinced. His arguments are excuses rather than
justifications. Rhetoric is substituted for logic. Appeals
to orthodox emotion serve instead of definition and
evidence.
Mr. Gladstone’s defence of the imprecatory Psalms
is an elaboration of the latest plea of hard-pressed
Bibliolators. “ They are not the utterances of selfish
spite,” says the editor of Lux Mundi, “ they are the
claim which righteous Israel makes upon God that he
should vindicate himself.”f In the same way Mr.
Gladstone furbishes up the Hebrew Old Clothes. He
takes this verse, for instance :—“ And of thy goodness
slay mine enemies, and destroy all them that vex my
soul, for I am thy servant.”^ And this is how he
defends it:—
■" The Psalmist pleads that he is engaged in the service of
God; that in this service he is assailed and hindered; that,
powerless in himself, he appeals to the source of power; and
that he invokes upon the assailants and hinderers of the Divine
work the Divine vengeance, even to their extinction.”
Now this is the very essence of fanaticism. When
a man calls on God to extinguish the life of a fellow
man, he is only one step from murder; the wish is.
there, and only the opportunity is lacking.
It is refreshing to turn from Mr. Gladstone’s ob
servations to the “Holy Willie’s Prayer” of honest
* Max Muller, Natural Religion, pp. 233, 234.
t P. 350.
J Psalm cxliii., 12.
�49
The Grand Old Book.
Robert Burns. The hero of that poem talks like the
Psalmist, and defends himself on the lines of Mr.
Gladstone, but the poet depicts him as a fanatical
hypocrite.
We are told that Jesus Christ forgave his enemies
and bade us do the same. How is it possible, then, for
a Christian to recognise the voice of God in the fol
lowing curses which the writer of the hundred-andninth Psalm pours upon his enemy ?
“ Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let
his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his
children be continually vagabonds and beg: let them seek their
bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner
catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor.
Let there be none to extend mercy unto him : neither let there
be any to favor his fatherless children.”
More infamous words never came from the mouth of
man. If this indeed be the language of inspiration;
if this is how a pious man may sp?ak when under the
influence of the Christian Deity; we had better re
turn to the glad and gracious paganism of Greece, and
worship the kindlier deities of its lovely Pantheon.
Or let us adore the friendly Penates, whose worship,
as Shelley paid, is neither sanguinary nor absurd.
*
Mr. Gladstone seems to have misgivings as to the
soundness of his defence of these imprecatory Psalms.
He falls back, therefore, upon a hackneyed stratagem.
Just as he bade us take a “ grand and comprehensive
view ” of the science of Genesis, he now tells us that
“ the Psalms, like other productions, are to be judged
by their general character.” True, if they are human
productions, but not if they are divine. Such a plea
can only be advanced on behalf of a being who is a
* Letter to T. L. Peacock, July 17, 1816.
D
�50
The Grand Old Book.
mixture of good and evil, wisdom and ignorance,
strength and frailty. It is virtually asking us to make
a debit and credit account, and strike a balance;
and while this is just and natural in the case of a man,
it is absurd and even blasphemous in the case of a
God.
�The Grand Old Book.
51
CHAPTER IV.
THE MOSAIC LEGISLATION.
Mr. Gladstone’s fourth chapter is on “ The Mosaic
Legislation.” Its object is to show that the Pentateuch
is older than the “ negative ” critics allow, and that in
any case the hand of Moses is obvious in the Law
which is called by his name.
Incidentally he makes some very questionable state
ments. For instance, he speaks of Moses as the person
by whom the books of the Pentateuch “ profess to have
been written.” If he means that this authorship is
asserted in the very texture of the books we think he
is mistaken, and if he means that the name of Moses
is affixed to them he is guilty of triviality. “We are
not told,” says Professor Max Muller, who is not a
destructive critic, “ that Moses consigned the Old
Testament to writing.” Again, he declares that “ no
scholar would suppose that Moses was even the author
of the Pentateuch. ‘ The Books of Moses’ were to
the more orthodox Jews the books telling of Moses,
not the books written by Moses, just as (the Book of
Job’ was the book containing the story of Job, not a
book written by Job.”*
Mr. Gladstone also asserts that “the existence of
Moses is even better and far better established than
that of Lycurgus.” Whether that he so or not is of
little consequence. “With regard to Lycurgus, the
Natural Religion, p. 556.
�52
The Grand Old Book.
lawgiver,” says Plutarch, “ there is nothing whatever
that is undisputed.” Surely Mr. Gladstone does not
think the “ negative ” critics have agreed to stand
sponsors for this ancient Spartan. He will find that
Lycurgus is given up as a legendary character by the
most sober historians. What Mr. Gladstone thinks it
“ irrational ” to do is actually done by Sir G. W. Cox
in a General History of Greece for the use of colleges.
He need not be surprised, therefore, if the still more
“ irrational ” act of treating Moses as legendary is
performed in the more advanced schools of criticism.
It would be well for Mr. Gladstone to explain the
statement that “ in the case of Moses we have much
evidence independent of, and anterior to, the institu
tions in their historic form.” Where is this “much
evidence ” to be found ? Certainly not in profane
history; as certainly not in the Jewish historical books,
which ignore Moses and all his works.
There seems no limit to the license of affirmation on
the orthodox side. Let a Christian write for orthodox
readers, in a magazine where he cannot be replied to,
and he will apparently invent as much as he can palm
off, or restate without the slightest qualification any
number of time-honored falsehoods, however frequently
they have been challenged and exposed.
We must also say that Mr. Gladstone is playing to
the gallery in his remarks on the differences among the
“ negative ” critics. “ Speaking at large,” he says,
“ every imaginable difference has prevailed among the
critics themselves as to the source, date, and authorship
of the books.” This is like the objection that the
Bible chronology must be true because the geologists
are not agreed as to the precise age of the earth's
strata, although to a sensible man it is ^quite enough
�The Grand Old Booh.
53
that they do agree on an immense antiquity. Similarly,
the “ negative” critics of the Pentateuch are not
agreed as to the date and authorship of every part;
for it is one thing to produce a forgery, and quite
another to unravel it, more than two thousand years
afterwards, so as to be able to say, this was written by
such a hand, and that was written at such a time.
But there is a point of agreement among these critics,
and it is a very important one. As Mr. Gladstone says,
they have brought the Books of Moses “ gradually
towards later epochs: to Samuel, to the age of David,
to the severance of the Kingdoms, to Josiah, to the
Captivity, and those who followed it.” How absurd,
then, is the statement that it is “ difficult to learn
whether there is any real standing ground which the
present negative writers mean not only to occupy but
to hold.” They occupy and hold this ground—that the
Pentateuch is not the work of Moses. This is esta
blished by a thousand reasons, linguistic, historical, and
sociological. Who wrote the various parts, when they
were written, and where they were written, are different
and difficult questions. They are partially answered;
but even if they should never be answered completely,
it is certain that Moses was not and could not have
been the author.
Suppose we take the case of the forged Parnell
letters. Reasonable men might have been perfectly
satisfied that Mr. Parnell did not write them without
discovering who did. The negative evidence might,
have been overwhelming. The positive evidence was
furnished, under pressure, by the forger himself. But
suppose Pigott had died before he could be crossexamined, instead of blowing his brains out afterwards;
it might never have been possible to ascertain all the
�54
The Grand Old Book.
details of the forgery, yet the forgery itself might
still have been incontestible. In the same way we may
Satisfy ourselves that the Pentateuch was the work of
many hands in many generations, without being able to
put the forgers in the witness-box and wring from them
a full confession.
’ There is one point, however, on which Mr. Gladstone
is entitled to praise. Contending, as he does, that
“the heart and substance” of the Mosaic Law is
authentic, he repudiates all sympathy with temporisers
like Mr. Gore, the clever editor of Lux Mundi. These
writers plead for a possible “ Mosaic germ ” of Jewish
legislation, but allow that it was developed through
centuries by the priesthood, which ascribed its own
work to the ancient Jewish leader.
*
Now Mr. Glad
stone remarks that “ Those are doubtless perfectly
sincere who represent this as a method of progressive
revelation. But there are also those who think that
such a progressive revelation as this would for over two
thousand years have palmed upon the whole Jewish
and Christian world a heartless imposture.” On another
page Mr. Gladstone urges the impossibility of regarding
such an imposture as harmless. “ If the use of his
[Moses's] name was a fiction,” he declares, “it was
one of those fictions which are falsehoods, for it altered
essentially the character of the writings to which it
was attached.”
This explicit statement is very much to Mr. Glad
stone's credit. Yet it would not be difficult for Mr. Gore
to show that Mr. Gladstone has his own way of evading
the hardest task of his position. Mr. Gore puts forward
a comprehensive theory, which, if accepted, provides
* Lux Mundi, pp. 352, 353. (Seventh, edition).
�The Grand Old Booh.
55'
for all difficulties. He works on wholesale principles.
Mr. Gladstone employs another theory, which is open
to as grave objections. He would have us believe that
“ it is the legislation, for which in the sacred text itself
the claim is constantly made of being due to direct
communication from above, while no corresponding
assertion in general accompanies the historical recitals.”
This, he appears to think, enables him to ascribe any
quantity of Bible blunders to the “ probable imperfec
tions of the text.” But if imperfections crept into
one part of the text, is it impossible that they crept
into the other ? If the historical text is corrupt, may
not the legislative text be also corrupt? Is it con
ceivable, Mr. Gore might urge, that a God of infinite
wisdom and power would make a positive and exact
revelation of his will, without taking the precaution to
preserve it in its original purity; or would he allow it
to be associated, nay interwoven, with human writings,
and thus inevitably to share tlie suspicion and discredit
of such productions in future ages of scientific criticism?
And if, Mr. Gore might continue, you abandon the
plenary inspiration of the text, as you obviously do,
you are bound to formulate another theory of inspira
tion or let the text go altogether. To pick and choose
at your own pleasure is arbitrary. Formulate your
theory, and let us see whether it differs essentially
from mine.
Such a challenge Mr. Gladstone would be bound to
accept; and if he did so he would probably discover
that Mr. Gore’s theory-—which, by the way, is. not
original—is the only one that will leave a Protestant
any hold on the Pentateuch as inspired; a slender
hold, it is true, but the only one possible in the cir
cumstances.
<
�56
The Grand Old Booh.
Mr. Gladstone advances five arguments to prove the
antiquity of the Mosaic Law, and we shall proceed to
discuss them. But before doing so we must make this
observation. Not one of his arguments would carry
the Law back to the time of Moses. They might, if
they were sound, carry it back beyond the Captivity,
but this is many hundreds of years from the death of
the supposed lawgiver. It appears to us, indeed, that
Mr. Gladstone is playing on his readers’ lack of historic
perspective.
First A rgument.—The early ages of the Jews were
purer and nobler, and less idolatrous, than the later;
it is therefore “ a paradox, and even a rather wanton
paradox, to refer the production of those sacred Mosaic
books, which constituted the charter of the Hebrews
as a separate and peculiar people, to the epochs of a
lowered and decaying spiritual life.”
Surely Mr. Gladstone has read Jewish history upside
down. Where in the narrative of the wandering in
the desert, of the rule of the Judges, and of the early
Kings, shall we find this heightened spiritual life ?
Look at the hideous story of the Levite and his concu
bine in the Book of Judges, and see what kind of
private and public life existed in the “ good old times.”
Then turn to the best parts of the Book of Isaiah, and
see the immense improvement in every respect. If
the Mosaic Law shows a high spiritual culture (which
for the moment we neither affirm nor dispute), as Mr.
Gladstone alleges, it was more likely to have originated
in the later than in the earlier ages of Jewish history.
Second Argument.—From about 300 b.c. the Jews
paid great reverence to the sacred text, and took pain
ful precautions to preserve its integrity. Is it possible,
therefore, that the ostensible editors were really the
�The Grand Old Book.
7
authors ? And was there not “ something like hallu
cination on the part of a people that accepted such
novelties as ancient?”
This is a skilful, but not very ingenuous, appeal to
the ordinary readers of to-day, who may well doubt
the possibility of such an imposition being now success
ful, and who have neither the knowledge nor the
imagination to weigh the probability of its success in a
very different state of society, when there was no
printing-press and no general circulation of literature,
when the masses were grossly ignorant, and all the
knowledge that existed was monopolised by the
theocracy.
Let us take a couple of illustrations of how people
can be the victims of “ something like hallucination ”—
one from profane and one from sacred history.
.During the mediaeval period the Arthurian legends
grew up in Western Europe. They were most circum
stantial, as works of imagination are apt to be; witness
the marvellous details of Defoe’s Robinson Crusoe or
his History of the Great Plague, or, in our own day,
the minute Dutch painting of Dickens. When we
read the Arthurian legends in Sir Thomas Mallory’s
great book they seem like actual occurrences. It
requires an effort to realise that they are purely
romantic; and they have still enough life-blood in
them to give an air of reality to Tennyson’s more
shadowy Idylls of the King. Centuries ago those
legends were real- history. They were as true as
Gospel. Now we know they are products of imagina
tion. The famous Round Table was the dream of
poets’ brains. The gallant knights and lovely ladies
were fictions. Arthur himself seems never to have
existed. Like Willian Tell, another purely romantic
�08
The Grand Old Booh.
• creation, who has figured so prominently in Swiss
history as an actual hero, Arthur has melted away
in the light of modern criticism. Nor is it anything
but foolishness to lament the “ loss,” for if history
becomes more scientific, the poetry of the old legends
remains as an imperishable possession.
Our second illustration shall be taken from the New
Testament. In the Epistle of Jude a quotation is
made from “ Enoch, the seventh from Adam.” Now1
this quotation is really taken from the Book of Enoch,
a work which is ascribed by some authorities to the
first, and by others to the second, century before Christ.
That is the highest antiquity claimed for the book by
any competent scholar. Yet here, in the Epistle of
Jude, we have a Christian writer of probably the second
century after Christ, citing the work as written by the
Enoch who lived before the Flood. In other words, a
work not four hundred years old, and perhaps not
three hundred, was honestly taken to be older than
Moses, older than Abraham, older than Noah. Was not
this “ somethiug like hallucination ” ? And if a Chris
tian writer could be so deceived, was it impossible for
Jewish readers to be the victims of a less colossal
deception ?
Before dismissing this second argument we must
remark that Mr. Gladstone exaggerates its basis. He
asserts that the Massoretes, or official guardians of the
Hebrew text, were a body “ without a parallel in the
history of the world.” They counted the words and
the very letters of the text, and Mr. Gladstone calls on
the negative critics to say whether this “ profound and
exacting veneration ” is consistent with the Books of
the Pentateuch being recent concoctions.
•' Mr. Gladstone’s statement, as to the unparalleled
�The Grand Old Book.
5&1
character of the Massoretes, was challenged in the"
Jewish Chronicle. But one of Mr. Gladstone’s foibles
is infallibility, and although he is obviously mistaken,
he declares in the Preface his belief that his readers
“ have not been misled.” With respect to the Hindus,
he says, “ I understand it is stated that they counted
verses, words, syllables, and letters; but it does not
appear that this statement is one historically authenti
cated.”
We beg Mr. Gladstone’s pardon, but it does appear
to be historically authenticated. Speaking of the Vedic
hymns, Professor Max Muller says that they “ must at
a very early time have become the subject of the most
careful study. Not only every word, but every letter
and every accent were settled in the teaching of the
schools, and the only marvel is that so many irregular
forms should have escaped the levelling influence of
teachers from generation to generation.” The Pratis^khyas “ show us with what extraordinary minute
ness the hymns of the Veda had been analysed.” “ In
the hymns themselves,” he observes, “ the poets speak
of their thoughts as God-given—this we can understand
-—while at a later time the theory came in that not
the thoughts and words only, but every syllable, every
letter, every accent, had been communicated to half
divine and half-human prophets by Brahma, so that
the slightest mistake in pronunciation, even to the
pronunciation of an accent, would destroy the charm
and efficiency of these ancient prayers.”*
Now Mr. Gladstone admits that he has not “ the
^slightest pretension to speak with authority upon this
subject,” while Professor Max Muller is a specialist of
* Natural Religion, pp. 297, 558.
�60
The, Grand Old Booh.
European fame in this department of study. The
reader will therefore have little difficulty in forming a,
judgment.
Third Argument.—If the Jewish hierarchy composed
the Pentateuch, and ascribed it, or at least the legis
lation, to Moses, the forgery was unaccountably
unscientific. The books are 44 rather crude and irre
gular,” they 44 have not that consistency which belongs
to consecutiveness of form.” Yet the priests had
44 unbounded freedom of manipulation,” and there was
every condition to44 favor the production of a thoroughly
systematic and orderly work.”
Now this argument proceeds on two false assump
tions ; first, that the whole Pentateuch was concocted
at one time by one set of hands—say like our Revised
Version of the Bible; secondly, that the priests were
skilful enough to anticipate the severity of modern
criticism. The first assumption would be scouted by
the whole school of 44 negative ” critics ; the second
would be derided by every person with a grain of
common sense.
The fact is, the forgers were skilful enough for their
own necessities. They had merely to deal with the
circumstances of their own time. And if the circum
stances had not changed, as they did not until the
modern invention of printing, and the growth of exact
knowledge, the forgery would still hold its ground. It
imposes on ordinary people still, and apparently it
imposes on Mr. Gladstone. But it did not impose on
Spinoza, who viewed it as a man of genius, a mathe
matician, and a scholar; it did not impose on Colenso,
who examined it with more than the minuteness of
Sii’ Charles RusselFs examination of Pigott; it does
not impose on the great textual and historical critics
�The Grand Old Booh.
61
of Germany, Holland and France ; nor does it impose
on English writers like Dr. Robertson Smith and the
editor of Lux Mundi. We may add that it did not
impose on the critical sagacity of Voltaire and Thomas
Paine.
Fourth Argument.—The exclusion of the doctrine
of a future life discredits the idea of the Law being
framed immediately before or after the Captivity, as
the Jews had then become familiar with the “ idea of
a future life and an Underworld, as held both in the
East and in Egypt.”
But was not Moses “ skilled in all the learning of the
Egyptians/-’ and was not the belief in a future life a
profound conviction among the Egyptians long before
his birth? Why then did he exclude it from the
Law ? Mr. Gladstone says it was because he wanted
to draw a sharp line between the Hebrews and other
nations. But why could not the same motive prevail
with the post-exile hierarchy ? Do we not know that
they were passionate Judaists? Were they not the
nurses of a patriotism far narrower and intenser than
that which obtained in the age of Solomon 1
Fifth Argument.—The Samaritan Pentateuch is a
proof of the antiquity of the Mosaic Law. “ How is
it possible,” Mr. Gladstone asks, “ to conceive that it
should have held as a Divine work the supreme place
in the regard of the Samaritans, if, about or near the
year b.c. 500, or, again, if at the time of Manasseh
the seceder, it had, as a matter of fact, been a recent
compilation of their enemies the Jews
This argument, if valid, would not carry the Penta
teuch back to the time of Moses, which is what Mr.
Gladstone undertakes to prove. At the utmost it could
only establish the fact Jhat the Pentateuch was] in
�62
The Grand Old Book.
existence before the Captivity, when the old Hebrew
character was in use among the Jews ; and it does not
require all the statistical power of Mr. Gladstone to
see that a book might exist 700 years before Christ
and still not exist 1,500 years before Christ. We are
accustomed to cutting big slices out of ancient chrono
logy, but really the years followed each other one at a
time, and many things happened in the course of
twenty generations.
Mr. Gladstone’s argument, however, is fallacious.
The Samaritans were not harder to impose upon than
the Jews, and however great their hostility, they had
a common interest in Moses and the founders of the
race.
Mr. Gladstone is curiously silent about the strong
objections to the antiquity of the Samaritan Penta
teuch. We have no space to enter upon them here,
but they are of a very pregnant character, and Mr.
Gladstone has perhaps shown a wise discretion in
avoiding this awkward branch of the subject.
Having gone through Mr. Gladstone’s arguments,
which we have drawn out in numerical order for the
sake of clearness, we proceed to remark that they are
all of an a priori character. He judiciously evades all
the positive facts of the case. He does not touch a
single internal difficulty. He does not explain, for
instance, how “ the stranger that is within thy gates ”
was inserted in the Fourth Commandment while the
Jews were desert nomads dwelling in tents; nor does
he give the slightest hint as to how the Mosaic Law
coidd have been carried out in the desert, or why it was
so utterly neglected during the rule of the Judges, and
plainly violated during the reign of the early Kings.
No one but a priest was to presume to offer sacrifice;
�The Grand Old Book.
63
yet we see David sacrificing, and at the opening of the
Temple we see Solomon officiating as High Pontiff.
The only concessions to rational criticism that Mr.
Gladstone deigns to make are these. There is a “ pro
bable imperfection of the text ”—a phrase wide enough
to cover anything—and numbers may have gone wrong
in transcribing; which again is a convenient method
of reconciling the wildest contradictions, and simply
involves the re-editing of the Pentateuch.
We have read that a famous grande dame (not one
of Brantome’s grandes dames de par le monde let us
hope) has written to thank Mr. Gladstone for the great
comfort and support she has derived from his defence
of the Bible. We do not envy him such praise. When
a man of his standing enters the lists, it should not be
to make a reassuring display to his lady friends in the
grand stand, but to grapple in deadly earnest with a
serious foe. This he has not done. He had enough of
Professor Huxley, and too much of Colonel Ingersoll.
For this reason, perhaps, the articles collected in the
volume we are criticising were contributed to Good
Words. It is a party magazine and no reply is per
mitted. He wins an easy victory who stalks into the
arena alone and fights an imaginary opponent. He may
gain the applause of those who wear his favor, but men
of honesty and discernment will lift their eyebrows at
the spectacle.
�64
The Grand Old Booh,.
CHAPTER V.
THE CORROBORATIONS OF SCRIPTURE.
Mr. Gladstone’s sixth chapter is on “Recent Corrobo
rations of Scripture from the Regions of History and
Natural Science/’ In the preliminary section he
refers to evolution as “ confirming the great argument
of design ”; but as, in this respect, he differs from
John Stuart Mill, and even from Darwin himself, his
mere ipse dixit counts for nothing. Mr. Gladstone
also observes that “ the doctrine of birth-sin, as it is
sometimes called, is simply the recognition of the
hereditary disorder and degeneracy of our natures ; and
of all men the evolutionist would be the last to estab
lish a title to object to it in principle.” Here again
Mr. Gladstone shows a curious ignorance of evolution.
Darwinians do not believe in the “ degeneracy ” of
human nature; on the contrary, they assert its slow
but constant improvement. They do not teach the
fall of man, but the rise of man. The Darwinian law
of heredity and the Christian doctrine of original sin
have absolutely nothing in common; and whoever
asserts that they have, understands neither the one nor
the other.
Never has it been our misfortune to read a more
extravagant piece of special-pleading than Mr. Glad
stone’s section on the Assyrian and Hebrew myths of
the Deluge. He does not dispute that the Assyrian
tablets deciphered by the late Mr. George Smith were
“ composed more than 2,000 years B.c. ” ; that is, five
�The Grand Old Book.
65
hundred years before the alleged date of Moses. Yet,
in the face of this chronology; in face of the lack of
all reference to the Deluge in the Jewish historical
books before the Captivity; in face of the great
influence which contact with Babylon indisputably
exercised on the Jewish people ; Mr. Gladstone asserts
that the Hebrew and Assyrian flood-stories are “ derived
through independent channels,” that “ the one comes
through a powerful and civilised empire, the other
through an obscure nomad family.” Surely Mr. Glad
stone must see that he is begging the whole question.
He has first to establish the fact—if it be a fact—that
the flood-story was known to the pre-Mosaic Jews;
whereas he has nothing but assumption to show that
it was even known to the pre-Exile Jews.
Everything Mr. Gladstone has to say on the subject
is based on this simple trick of begging the question.
He starts from a premiss, which is the very proposition
in dispute, and at the finish he blandly desires his
opponents to admit his conclusion.
First, he says the Jewish account of the Flood is
monotheistic; which, by the way, it is not, for there
are two accounts purposely disguised in our English
version, in one of which the deity is called by the
single name of Jehovah, and in the other by the plural
name of Elohim. On the other hand, he says, the
Assyrian account is polytheistic; and he argues that
the simpler form is nearer to the original source. But
does not Mr. Gladstone see that all this is consistent
with the position of the “ negative ” critics, who assert
that the Jewish flood-story was borrowed from Babylon
when the Jews were monotheistic 1
Secondly, he asserts that the absence of local
coloring in the flood-story of the Jews is natural if it
E
�66
The Grand Old Book.
was derived from a simple nomad people like Abraham?
his ancestors and his posterity. But is it not just as
natural, on the theory that it was doctored by the later
Jewish priests for their own people ? Would they not
cut away everything that gave the story a foreign air ?
Even, however, if Abraham and his family picked
up a knowledge of the flood-story while they hovered
on the skirts of the Chaldean civilisation, or brought it
away with them from “ Ur of the Chaldees,” there is
no disputing the fact that the legend existed among the
Chaldeans before the basis of the Jewish nation was
laid.
Let us now see how Mr. Gladstone disposes of
Professor Huxley. Does he reply to Huxley’s argu
ments against any such deluge as is related in Genesis?
Not a bit of it. He declares with a not too ingenuous
modesty that he has “ no capacity to handle 33 such a
controversy, although Huxley’s argument against a
partial deluge, in any wise resembling the Bible story,
was level to the most ordinary intelligence, and based
on geographical and physical truths which are taught
to school-boys. Mr. Gladstone does not refrain, how
ever, from sneering at Huxley’s “ magisterial ” tone;
and for the rest, he plays off against him the autho
rities of Mr. Ho worth, the Duke of . Argyll and Sir J.
Dawson. But Mr. Howorth’s evidence only shows that
there were catastrophes in the earlier ages of the earth,
which no one need dispute ; and Dawson, in one of his
Religious Tract Society pamphlets, distinctly argues
that the Deluge was only one of the many disasters
that have happened in geological history.
*
What on
* “ The cataclysm,” says Dawson, “ by which these men were swept
away may have been one of those submersions of our continents which,
locally or generally, have occurred over and over again, almost countless
times, in the geological history of the earth.”—Revelation and Science
�The Grand Old Booh.
67
earth has this to do with the flood which occurred in
the historical period, a huge mass of water kept standing
on the sloping plains of Mesopotamia, an ark containing
specimens of all forms of life, and the destruction by
miracle of all the human race with the exception of
eight persons ?
Mr. Gladstone is a better writer than the ordinary
Christian apologist, but his method of controversy is
no whit superior. He thinks to settle disputes by
quoting opinions from orthodox and semi-orthodox
scholars. But this is not the way'to end controversy,
or to establish any satisfactory conclusion. Nor is it
exactly honest to neglect to inform the reader that the
scholars quoted are orthodox or semi-orthodox, and to
refrain from indicating the great authorities whose
opinions are of an opposite character.
Is it not astoundingly cool of Mr. Gladstone to say
that “ the Hebrew story of the Deluge has long been
supported by a diversity of traditions among nations
and races of the world”1 What he should have said
is simply this, that flood-legends are almost universal.
That they “ support ” the Hebrew story is a monstrous
misstatement. The probability, in our opinion, is that
all these flood-legends are connected with traditional
reminiscences of inundations in prehistoric times, when
men were without the resources of science, and were
the helpless victims of calamity. Mr. Gladstone .cites
Lenonnant as contending that these flood-legends point
to some “ cataclysm that took place at a spot near the
primeval cradle of humanity,” though the phrase
“a spot” is not in the original French, and seems
(Religious Tract Society), p. 43.—Thus the positive certainty of Genesis
turns to a “ may have been,” and the miracle of the Flood becomes a
natural and common occurrence.
�68
'J he Grand Old Houk.
introduced on the usual principle of orthodox transla
tion. But neither Mr. Gladstone nor Lenormant
knows the “ spot” where humanity was first cradled,
and if there be any truth in the modern scientific
teaching as to the antiquity of man, there is a vast
interval between the oldest myths and legends and the
ape-like progenitors of the human race.
Mr. Gladstone talks as though the flood-story were
accepted as “ history ” by the generality of Christian
scholars and scientists. But it is not so accepted by
Professor St. George Mivart, the Catholic; by the
Bishop of Carlisle and Archbishop Farrar, of the
Church of England ; or by many a critic in the ranks
of Nonconformity. The tendency is to explain the
story as a legend, with a spiritual lesson, or to whittle
it down to the proportions of a local flood; and we may
ultimately learn that Noah’s Flood is an exaggeration
of a village deluge that washed away three kittens and
a blind puppy.
Much unprofitable “learning” is devoted by Mr.
Gladstone to showing how the human race descended
from Shem, Ham, and Japheth. Even if these names
are symbolic of the white, yellow and black races, they
do not give the Bible any claim to inspiration; for
these great diversities were well-known, and the legend,
whenever it was developed, would naturally follow
them. But the American and Australian races were
not known, and precisely as the Bible leaves them out
does Mr. Gladstone leave them out. He quietly
sacrifices two continents for the sake of the Pentateuch.
With respect to the Sinaitic journey of the Jews,
nothing could be more simple than the remark that
the names of places, the distances, and so forth, prove
the narrative of Exodus to be “a contemporary record
�The Grand Old Book.
69
of the events to which it relates.” Is Mr. Gladstone
so innocent as to imagine that the Jewish writers of
the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries before Christ
were unable to obtain any information about the
frontiers of Egypt and the coast of the Red Sea?
Did not Solomon marry an Egyptian princess ? Were
not the .Jews fighting in alliance with Egypt when the
hosts of Sennacherib were destroyed ? It really seems
as if nothing were too childish for a Christian apologist
to advance on behalf of the Bible.
The last “ corroboration” of Scripture is that the
world, in the late Dr. Whewell’s opinion, will end with
a catastrophe. Mr. Gladstone is informed on “ high
authority ” that this is the “ established conclusion of
astronomers ” ; and this is also “ the emphatic declara
tion of the inspired Word.” Peter prophesied it.
And where? Why in the Second Epistle of Peter,
which scholars do not allow to be his at all I Yet on
this basis Mr. Gladstone proclaims that “ the Galilean
fishermen knew what all the genius and learning of the
world for thousands of years failed to discover.” For
our part, we have a great distrust of Mr. Gladstone’s
“high authority.” In any case, this questionable
“ established conclusion of astronomers ” has no relation
to the prophecy of Peter, for this gentleman did not
mean the absolute destruction of the earth (as we read
his words), but rather a renovation of it, as the dwelling
of righteousness. The writer of the second epistle of
Peter refers to a supernatural catastrophe, which was
to occur shortly, or at any rate before the end of the
human race; and only the most Jesuitical special
pleading could torture this into harmony with any
scientific speculations as to the ultimate fate of our
globe.
�70
The Grand Old Book.
Sir Isaac Newton was a great scientist. He also
wrote in defence of the Bible. Where are those
writings now ? Ask the amateurs of curious literature.
Mr. Gladstone is a great statesman. He also writes in
defence of the Bible, and we believe that his apologies
will share the fate of Newton’s. They display what is
too often “the last infirmity of noble minds.”
�The Grand Old Book.
71
CHAPTER V.
GLADSTONE AND HUXLEY.
In his concluding chapter Mr. Gladstone breaks a
lance with Professor Huxley, whom he calls “ the
Achilles of the opposing army,” and in whom we ven
ture to say Mr. Gladstone has not yet found the
vulnerable point.
Professor Huxley has argued that the Mesopotamian
plain was an unfortunate spot for Noah's Flood, since
it slopes to the extent of nearly six hundred feet, and
a body of water high enough to carry the Ark—to say
nothing about covering all “ the highest hills under
heaven ”—would rush down in a furious torrent, and
the fate of the floating menagerie may be left to
imagination. Now Mr. Gladstone has made inquiries
of “ an engineer who is in charge of a portion of one
of our rivers,” and he is informed that “ a fall of one
in 3,420 would probably produce a current of two
miles an hour.” And if “ instead of taking an ordinary
English river we remove the banks, and suppose the
stream indefinitely widened, the fall remaining the
same, the rate of the current would not be increased
but slackened.”
Upon the strength of this “ information ” Mr.
Gladstone reads Professor Huxley a solemn lesson in
circumspection, advising him to be more “ precise " in
future, and not to call a placid stream “ a furious
torrent.
It does not occur to Mr. Gladstone, who is
confessedly ignorant of physical science, that he is
�72
The Grand Old Booh.
taking a dangerous course in giving the author of
Physiography instruction in “elementary hydraulics.”
A little reflection would show him that he has forgotten
an all-important point. He takes into calculation the
fall of the stream and the banks, but omits the other
end. The current of a stream, which is continuous until
it joins the sea, is only superficial; while a body of
water, such as Professor Huxley contemplates, would
move in bulk at the lower end with terrible force.
It is not Professor Huxley, therefore, but Mr. Glad
stone, who needs to be told that he “ should take
reasonable care to include in his survey of a case all
elements which are obviously essential to a right
judgment of it.”
Like an old parliamentary hand, Mr. Gladstone
avoids answering Professor Huxley’s question as to how
such a depth of water was kept standing for several
months on a sloping plain. This question, which is
far more important than the velocity of Noah’s Ark, is
quietly ignored.
Mr. Gladstone is equally discreet with respect to the
miracle of the demoniacs and the swine in the New
Testament. He has a wonderful faculty, in these dis
cussions, for pursuing side issues, to the complete
neglect of the central points of the problem. This may
be the art of a rhetorician, but it will not convince
“ the opposing army,” or make a favorable impression
on impartial spectators.
A discussion as to the Gardarean swine took place
between Professor Huxley and Dr. Wace in the Nine
teenth Century, and Mr. Gladstone remarks that on
this occasion the Professor “ touched lofty ground
indeed,” as though only clergymen or Christian laymen
had a right to approach it.
�The Grand Old Booh.
73
“ Mr. Huxley, as a physiologist,” says Mr. Glad
stone, “ disbelieves in demoniacal possession.” True
*
And does Mr. Gladstone believe in it? Well, he will
not say. “ Such a physiological judgment,” he mockmodestly declares, “ it is not for me to discuss.” But
that is the vital point at issue. It is that alone which
gives the story the slightest interest to people living in
the nineteenth century. If demoniacal possession be a
fact, the science of this age is woefully mistaken ; if it
be not a fact, Jesus could not have ordered devils to
leave the possessed at Gadara. In that case the evan
gelists put into his mouth words that he never uttered.
If they did this in a single case they may have done it
a hundred times, and their credibility is gone for ever.
This was clearly set forth by Professor Huxley, and
it must be obvious to Mr. Gladstone. We therefore
conclude that, when he ignores the devils and fastens
his attention on the pigs, he is aware that demoniacal
possession is indefensible. But what is obnoxious to
reason is often embraced by faith, and Mr. Gladstone
appears to accept the story of the devilled swine of
Gadara by the operation of what he calls “ the organ
of belief,” which seems to be a faculty that enables
him to cling to superstition in spite of his intellect.
Mr. Gladstone allows that Professor Huxley “ very
properly touches the question of the injury inflicted by
the destruction of the swine, which was due to our
Lord’s permission.” Nevertheless he falls into a furious
passion, which is ill-disguised by the temperate form of
his speech.
u So then, after eighteen centuries of worship offered to our
Lord by the most cultivated, the most developed, and the most
progressive portion of the human race, it has been reserved to
a scientific inquirer to discover that he was no better than a
�74
The Grand Old Book.
law-breaker and an evil-doer. It 10 sometimes said that the
greatest discoveries are the most simple. And this, if really a
discovery, is the simplest of them all. So simple that he who
runs may read, for it lies on the very surface of the page. The
ordinary reader can only put the wondering question, how, in
such a matter, came the honors of originality to be reserved to
our time and to Professor Huxley.”
Were Mr. Gladstone better acquainted with “ nega
tive ” criticism, he would know it was not reserved for
Professor Huxley to discover that the drowning of the
Gardarean swine was a “ wanton destruction of other
people’s property.” The objection has been common
for generations. Nor is it easy to pardon Mr. Glad
stone for raising the odium theologicum against his
adversary. Professor Huxley did not charge Jesus
Christ with being “ a law-breaker and an evil-doer.”
He distinctly declared his disbelief of the story. It is
those who believe it that are concerned to reconcile the
destruction of the swine with the common ethics of
civilised society.
The reconcilement attempted by Mr. Gladstone is
extremely curious. He says the country of the
Gadarenes was “ apparently part of the land of the
Girgashites, one of the seven Canaanitish nations, and
was subject, therefore, as a matter of religious obliga
tion, to the Mosaic law,” which prohibited the use of
pork. Mr. Gladstone is so sure of this, that he charges
Professor Huxley with not having “ encumbered him
self with the laboi' of inquiring what anybody else had
known or said about it.” Such a charge is positively
grotesque. Professor Huxley is a careful student and
an omnivorous reader, and has since shown a perfect
familiarity with all that is “ known or said about ” the
city of Gadara, which he gives excellent reasons for
regarding as a Greek city. Mr. Gladstone himself
�The Grand Old Booh.
75
allows that “ some commentators ” are of the same
opinion, thus exposing his own dogmatism on a contro
verted subject.
Mr. Gladstone's contention is that the Gadarenes,
being (somehow) under the Mosaic law, had no right
to keep pigs, and were simply treated like smugglers
caught with brandy-casks. But he forgets two things :
first, that Jesus was not a J ewish official, and had no
legal right to confiscate swine, or plague them with
devils ; and secondly, that the Jews were not forbidden
to keep pigs. Swine were unclean in Egypt, but they
existed there; they were unclean also to the Jews,
but they as clearly existed in Palestine; and the Jews
were allowed to sell unclean meat to the Gentiles, just
as they were allowed to lend them money on usury.
So far, therefore, from Professor Huxley’s reasoning
being “ hand-over-head,” we think it is Mr. Gladstone
who is open to the accusation.
Setting aside the subsidiary points of this story,
which is told by three of the evangelists, we have to face
—and Mr. Gladstone has to face—the central point of
demoniacal possession. It is an aspect of the same
superstition which gave birth to the injunction in
Exodus—“ Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live ”—an
injunction which has cost at least nine millions of lives.
It is part and parcel of a great supernatural theory,
which existed ages before the time of Christ, and still
prevails in savage countries where Christianity is
unknown. Looked at in this light, it assumes a tragic
importance, and the question arises—Does Mr. Glad
stone believe it ? If he does not, he should plainly say
so. If he does, he is one of those who, “ with their
backs to the sunrise worship the night.”
The “ mighty Julius,” the first Caesar, the greatest
�76
The, Grand Old Booh.
of earth’s rulers, who swayed the destinies of the
civilised world before Christ was born, was far above
the superstitions of his age—above the superstition of
all ages. Could he “ revisit the glimpses of the moon,”
and behold a great English statesman gravely discuss
ing a story of devils being turned out of men and sent
into swine, he would wonder what blight had fallen
upon the human intellect in two thousand years. And
were he to learn that such stories are contained in a
book which is regarded as divine, which is placed as
such in the hands of our children, which is paraded in
all our courts of justice, and is deemed the very basis
and security of our civilisation, he would be at no loss
to understand why the greatest rulers and statesmen
of modern Europe look small and effeminate beside the
best emperors of pagan Rome.
�The Grand, Old Book.
77
CHAPTER VI.
MODERN
SCEPTICISM.
A portion of Mr. Gladstone’s last chapter is con
cerned with Scepticism and its causes. After quoting
a jubilant sentence from Mr. Karl Pearson as to the
decadence of Christianity, he remarks that we have
heard this kind of thing often enough before, and
immediately plunges into an historical disquisition on
Freethought. Bishop Butler’s preface to the Analogy
is cited to show that “ a wave of infidelity was passing
over the land ” in his day; but, according to Mr.
Gladstone, it “ dwindled and almost disappeared,” and
at the time of Johnson’s social predominance it had
“hardly left a trace behind.” Now this is a most
amazing blunder. The A nalogy was first published in
1736. Nearly twenty years later were published the
philosophical works of Bolingbroke, which were exten
sively read and very influential. The works of Chubb
and other Deists were widely read in more popular
circles. Presently the sceptical writings of Voltaire
were translated into English ; and it was in the very
days of Johnson that Hume’s masterly essays on
Miracles and Religion saw the fight. Surely this is a
remarkable “ disappearance ” of scepticism, and the
“ hardly a trace behind ” is positively ludicrous. As a
matter of fact, it was just at this very time that
Freethought penetrated to the multitude. Hence
forth, instead of merely affecting fashionable and
literary coteries, it was destined to influence the
�78
The Grand Old Booh.
working classes, and the movement thus began never
abated to the day when John Bright told the House of
Commons that the lower classes cared as much about
the dogmas of Christianity as the upper classes cared
about its practice.
Mr. Gladstone is similarly mistaken about the
results of the French Revolution in England. He
says it “generated a distinctly religious reaction,’-’
which is quite true, though only half of the truth.
The Revolution stimulated advanced thought with the
same intensity as it stimulated conservatism in Church
and State. Wordsworth and Coleridge went one way,
but Byron and Shelley went the other way. Paine’s
Age of Reason was devoured by myriads of readers,
and a host of Freethought works swarmed from the
press of Richard Carlile and his brave colleagues who,
amidst calumny and imprisonment, made such a gallant
stand for the liberty of the press. From that time to
this there has been no real break in the progress of
Freethought.
Were Mr. Gladstone’s history as correct as it is
false, there would still be no force in his contention
that scepticism is subject to mutation or hazard, for no
great movement of the human mind ever goes forward
with an equable pace. The French Revolution was
followed by reaction in France, but its ideas did not
cease to operate. Restorations took place, and Napoleon
the Little’s empire succeeded in less than half a
century the empire of Napoleon the Great. But after
each disaster the Revolutionary idea gathered fresh
strength, and the present Republic has been able to
maintain itself against all its enemies. Similarly, if
English Freethought has had its moments of rebuff
and delay, it has nevertheless advanced in the main,
�The Grand Old Book.
79
as a stream flows on with varying, but on the whole
ever-increasing, volume and power.
We must also smile at Mr. Gladstone’s view of the
function of scepticism. He imagines it is designed in
“ the counsels of God ” in the interest of faith. Its
purpose is “ to dispel the lethargy and stimulate the
zeal of believers,” and to “ admonish their faith to
keep terms with reason, by testing it at all points.”
But as scepticism is impossible without sceptics, and
sceptics are liable to damnation, it would seem that Mr.
Gladstone’s deity moves in a mysterious way his
wonders to perform. One might imagine that faith
could be stimulated and enlightened by a less cruel or
perilous method. The poor sceptics are like the fire
flies of Sumatra, which are stuck on spits to illuminate
the ways at night.
“Persons of condition,” says
Carlyle, “can thus travel with a pleasant radiance,”
but—it is very awkward for the fire-flies 1
Anyhow, we find Mr. Gladstone admitting, what no
man in his senses can dispute, a “ sti'ong and wide
spread negative movement among our countrymen
during the latter portion of this century.” And how
does he account for it? Why, in the old-fashioned
way, though in a less offensive manner. The main
cause of “ the growth of negation ” is “ not intellectual,
but moral.” Are sceptics, then, less moral than
believers ? No, says Mr. Gladstone; to say that would
be “ untrue, offensive, and absurd.” “ Had I ever been
inclined to such a conception,” he adds, “ the experience
of my life would long ago have undeceived me.”
What, then, does Mr. Gladstone mean ? We gather
the following points from his rather diffuse explanation.
Unbelievers do not become immoral, because they
inherit the advantages of the Christian tradition.
�80
The Grand Old Booh.
“Many who have abjured Christianity,” he says,
“know not that in the best of their thought, their
nature, and their practice, they are appropriating its
fruits.” But this argument may be retorted on the
Christian. The sceptic might tell him that his practice
is determined, not by the doctrines and maxims of his
creed, but by the mental and moral atmosphere which
is generated by a thousand secular influences of science,
art, literature, politics and social life. The Christian
tradition was the same three centuries ago as at present,
but what a difference in our ethical ideals as well as in
the constitution of society !
Mr. Gladstone would parry this by comparing our
condition with that of “ the Greeks of the fifth century
before Christ, or the Romans at the period of the
Advent.” But this is a most fallacious test. Had
the comparison been challenged a century or two ago
—still the best part of two thousand years after Christ
—it is very doubtful if an unprejudiced arbiter would
have given the palm to Christendom. Europe, as a
whole, was far less civilised than Greece or Rome;
negro slavery existed in English and French colonies,
political freedom was almost unknown, the masses were
ignorant and degraded, and the brutality of the poor
and the profligacy of the rich were almost incredible.
Vast progress has been made in the last hundred and
fifty years, but to claim this as in any sense a product
of Christianity is to fly in the face of history and
common sense.
There is more force in Mr. Gladstone’s next sug
gestion, that scepticism has increased because the
world has grown more absorbing. The root of “ the
mischief ” he finds in the increase of wealth and enjoy
ment. “ It is the increased force within us of all that
�81
The Grand Old Book. ■
is sensuous and worldly,” he says “ that furnishes every
sceptical argument, good, bad, or indifferent, with an
unseen ally, and that recruits many a disciple of the nega
tive creed.” This language is invidious, but it expresses
a certain truth. This life and the next have always
been in conflict. As the one grows the other dwindles.
And as science makes this life better worth living, and
humanitarianism ennobles it with an ideal glow, the
“ world to come ” fades from our mental vision. In
this sense it is perfectly true that seculai’ progress is in
itself an enemy to religion.
Mr. Gladstone would have us rectify “ thisworldism ” by cultivating the “ organ of belief,” which
is probably our old friend “ faith ” under an alias ; and
he justly regards himself as possessing a higher
development of this organ than was,^>und in the late
Mr. Darwin. But when Mr. Gladstone goes on to
read the public its duties in regard to belief he runs
counter to all the principles which guide him in
politics. He declares the presumption to be in favor
of what is received, and that “ it is doubt and not
belief of the things received which ought in all cases
to be put upon its defence.” What a rubbing of
hands there would be in Tory circles if Mr. Glad
stone talked in this fashion from political plat
forms ! Then again, he tells us that inquiry is an
excellent thing, but it should only be undertaken
“ when it can be made the subject of effective prosecu
tion.” Whstt is this, however, but an ill-disguised plea
for handing over religion to professional experts?
But this is not Mr. Gladstone's policy in other
matters. When he stumps the country he appeals to
“ the masses,” and tells them they are the very persons
to form a sound judgment. “ Multitudes of men,” he
F
�l
r he Grand Old Booh.
complains, “ call into question the foundations of our
religion and the prerogatives of our sacred books,
without any reference to either their capacities or their
opportunities for so grave an undertaking.” But were
a Tory orator to speak thus—as many Tory orators
have spoken—of some effete institution, Mr. Gladstone
would reply that the people are quite competent to
form a judgment on broad issues. And it is just on
those broad issues that the “ multitudes of men ” who
think at all do form a judgment. They get hold of
certain great ideas in politics, ethics, or religion, and
by those ideas they judge institutions, customs, and
creeds. Such is the inevitable law of the popular
mind, and if Mr. Gladstone’s religious hopes are based
on the expectation that this law is to be reversed, or
set aside, in the /^terest of Christianity, we venture to
say he is building on a foundation of sand.
In a footnote to an earlier chapter Mr. Gladstone
draws attention “ with deep regret ” to the fact that
in the French census of 1881 no less than 7,684,906
persons “ declined to make any declaration of religious
belief.” It would, perhaps, be inaccurate to allege
that all these are pronounced unbelievers. Some of
them may merely hold that the state has no concern
with their religious opinions. But a very considerable
proportion must remain, who stand outside every form
of Christianity. Many are Voltairians, rejecting
revealed religion, while retaining a vague Deism.
Others are Atheists or Agnostics, who have discarded
all kinds of supernaturalism, and largely regard religion
as a mixture of mental disease and priestly imposture.
Such is the state of France, the radiating centre of
European ideas. England is proverbially slow though
tenacious. Our people are more open to practical
�The Grand Old Booh.
83
appeals than to appeals of principle. Their wits and
imaginations are less active than those of the French.
But they are daily becoming more accessible to ideas.
Their passion for truth is increasing. More and more
they ask whether principles and statements are true,
not whether they are old and venerable, or useful on
some ground of compromise where falsehood is recon
ciled with beneficence. Bogie, in short, is gaining a
stronger hold on the English mind; and as our people
begin to think, without respect to the ill consequences
that are always prophesied by the upholders of existing
institutions, they will investigate foundations as the
French are doing. Woe betide, then, the hoariest
superstitions I Everything will disappear that cannot
stand the test of what Cardinal Newman dreaded—
“ the restless intellect of man.” ^'Electric search
lights will play upon every corner of the present under
the rule of the past. There will be a flight of a
monstrous brood of tyrannous lies to the realm of
Chaos and old Night; and man, with clarified intellect
and purified heart, having freed himself from the yoke
of imposture, and learnt the manly lesson of selfreliance and self-control, will recognise the pinnacled
truth which all religions have obscured, that virtue is
the offspring of wisdom, and happiness the child of
both.
But this process will necessarily be gradual. Revo
lutions in human affairs are only believed in by those
who have read history on the surface, and never
penetrated to the great causes of intellectual and moral
movements. The advance of Humanity is an evolution.
This is the reason why “no one ever sees a religion die.”*
*PIeSnallt_ remark by the late Charles Bradlaugh, in a public debate
with a Newcastle clergyman.
�84
The Grand Old Book.
It required centuries to dethrone the gods of
Olympus. During the first three hundred years of its
propaganda, Christianity only succeeded in converting
a twentieth part of the inhabitants of the Roman
Empire. And Christianity underwent a change in
triumphing; it stooped to conquer; in overcoming
Paganism it became Paganised itself. Nor is it even
now free from the law it then obeyed. Success has its
conditions. Life itself is a constant adjustment. “ To
live,” said Cardinal Newman, “ is to change.” And
Christianity changes in order to exist. Except in
the periodical manifestoes of the Papacy, couched
in the pompous Latin of a bygone age, where
shall we find the note of sovereign authority in
its deliverances? It explains, apologises, heightens,
softens, and evi^i beseeches.
More and moi’e it
*
assumes the tone of a supplicant. And the changed
tone is accompanied by an altered teaching. Awk
ward doctrines may not be absolutely abandoned,
but they are minimised, while emphasis is laid on more
plausible tenets. In the schools called “ liberal,” or
“ advanced,” or “ forward,” the harsher features of thf|
old faith are softened, and sometimes explained away.
A new theory of the inspiration of Scripture is taught.
To use a phrase of Coleridge’s, we are to accept as
inspired what “ finds ” us. Some go to the length of
dismissing three-fourths of the miraculous element of
the Bible. Nor are the concessions confined to Reason.
Conscience is accommodated by various admissions.
Religion, instead of being the basis of morality, is
declared to be its crown. A good life is allowed to be
possible without “ faith.” Future rewards and punish
ments are given a new meaning. Heaven is widening,
and Hell is contracting. Every doctrine of Chris
�The Grand Old Book.
85
tianity is receiving a fresh explanation. And this is
the real victory of Scepticism. It cannot suddenly
destroy Christianity, but it abolishes it slowly by a
process of dilution. The name remains, but the sub
stance changes. Christianity is like a sack of salt in
running water. Little by little the contents are
washed away, although the brand looks as brave as
ever. By and bye the sack itself will collapse, and
join the flotsam and jetsam of the ocean of time.
Mr. Bradlaugh’s aphorism that “ no man ever sees a
religion die ” is literally true, but it has its limitations.
No man, except the great general, sees the whole of a
single battle; and who can see, in the span of a life
time, the whole of a battle which rages through
generations, and perhaps through centuries? Yet
history, and imagination working upon its revelations,
come to our aid and enable us to see “ in the mind’s
eye ” what is invisible to the organ of sense. Thus
the long death of a religion may be witnessed, every
phase of its dissolution followed, and the point discerned
when its epitaph may be written.
The student of history knows that the Christian
religion has been breaking up ever since the Revival of
Learning. Just as Christianity arose in the twilight
of Pagan civilisation, and flourished in the succeeding
night, so it began to wane in the young light of a new
day. Centuries have since rolled by, and Christianity
is still here; and, sustained by this knowledge, the
Christian may wreathe his lip with scorn. But did
not Pagamsm survive for centuries the knell of its
doom, outliving the bribes and proscription of Constan
tine and his successors, and lurking in the very magic
and witchcraft of the Middle Ages ? Smitten as it
was before the star of Bethlehem appeared, Paganism
�86
The Grand Old Book.
seemed little affected for centuries. Its temples con
tinued to lift their columns in proud beauty, its priests
were still numerous and powerful, and everything went
on as though the old system were as secure as the
everlasting hills.
Sacrifices were performed, the
victims’ entrails were inspected, the oracles gave forth
their dubious prophecies, and wealth was poured into
the hands of a multitude of priests.
One need not be surprised, therefore, at the present
condition of Christianity. It is enormously rich, and
its power is apparently tremendous; but the sphere of
its influence is in reality ever contracting. The Papacy
is shorn of half its power. Freethought is rampant in
France and Germany, and spreading like wildfire even
in the cities and universities of Spain. In England
the State Church feels that its life is threatened. The
Nonconformist bodies have crowds of ministers and
large incomes, but they are always sounding notes of
alarm. They hear the approach of the strong man
who is to take their possessions. It is the mind of man
the creeds have now to face—the Spirit of the Age,
whose presence is obvious in a thousand directions. A
sermon cannot be read, nor a religious paper scanned,
without seeing that all the Churches are aware of the
terrible foe who is winding about them like an invisible
serpent.
There is but one method of temporary salvation.
That method is adjustment. Under the stern law of
Natural Selection, which governs all—aqjmals, men,
gods, and creeds—everything must adjust itself to live.
A species may not vary for millenniums, and a creed
may change but little for centuries. But when the
environment alters, the species, or the creed, must
adjust itself—or die.
�The Grand Old Book.
87
Mr. Gladstone himself, though stiffly orthodox in
Comparison with many Christian writers, is obliged to
practise- this adjustment. Catholics like Professor
Mivart are pursuing it with amazing diligence. The
Romish Church, indeed, has a great advantage over
the Protestant sects, for it infallibly interprets the
infallible Bible, and is able to make it suit the
exigencies of the moment. Professor Mivart is ready
to find Darwinism in the Bible. He is also ready to
find that all the absolute Word of God it contains
might be written in a waistcoat pocket-book.
This clever trick of Catholic exigesis will not succeed
with strong-minded people, who know that infallible
Churches are as absurd as infallible Books. Nor will
it succeed with those who are familiar with ecclesiastical
history, and who know that the infallible Church has
often blundered, often contradicted itself, often been
torn with internecine strife, and has sometimes put
in the papal chair, as God’s vicegerent on earth, a
very monster of lust, avarice, and cruelty. But the
majority of men are not strong-minded, and have little
acquaintance with history. They are without that
knowledge of the past which Mr. Morley says “ saves
us from imposture and surprise.” It will not, therefore,
be astonishing if many of them who are too ignorant,
weak, and timid to think for themselves, should accept
the Catholic adjustment to the conditions of modern
thought, letting the Church decide for them how the
Bible is to •be read and understood, reposing their
faithful heads on the bosom of their Holy Mother, and
heeding her dogmatic voice as the perennial oracle
of God.
But the Protestant sects are doomed, and their
members will ultimately choose between Rome and
�88
The Grand Old Booh.
Reason. Minds of - ordinary calibre cannot be satisfied
with apologetics like Mr. Gladstone’s, which bring the
Bible into harmony with modern thought by a perpetual
torture of its language. The reflection must arise, that
if the Bible does not mean what it says, no one can
tell what it does mean. And no one can tell, exclaims
the Catholic, except the Church, the living voice of
God.
■
Here, then, is safety for timid and superstitious
souls. But the Protestant quits this land of Egypt,
with its proud Pharaoh, and its pyramid churches, and
its swarming priests, and all the leeks, the onions, the
garlic, and the cucumber. He dares the desert in
search of a better land. Yet he wanders eternally,
subsisting on droppings from heaven, and chance
streams in the thirsty soil. Courage fails hirff at sight •
of the Promised Land, though tempted By the verdant
soil, and the rich dark clusters of the glorious vines.
Back he hies to the desert, until the old dread of Egypt
returns, and once more he approaches the Promised
Land, only to be driven back again by his craven fears.
But this will not go on for ever. Many are already
returning to Egypt, others are crossing the Jordan,
and a clear field will ultimately be left for the mighty
struggle between Catholicism and Freethought, in
which more will be decided than the fate of the Pro
testant fetish; for the conflict is between Reason and
Faith, the natural and the supernatural, reality and
fable, truth and falsehood, day and niglfb, the living
present and the dead past, the rights of man and the
claims of gods, the priest's dogma and the child’s
freedom, the tomb of yesterday and “the prophetic
soul of the wide world dreaming on things to come.”
���
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 grand old book: a reply to the Rt. Hon. W.E. Gladstone's "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture"
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: vii, 88 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Stamp of M. Steinberger,4, 5 & 6 Great St Helens, London E.C., on front cover. Title handwritten on cover. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1891
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1436
N242
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 grand old book: a reply to the Rt. Hon. W.E. Gladstone's "The impregnable rock of Holy Scripture"), 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-Evidences
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Free Thought
Gladstone
NSS
W.E. (William Ewart)
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/73b0c8d8ba0d0859f1ea3036a537a55c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=h6PT5pPMJY5AlZYWEIoYym2pDOgAmPUQyqLnGPMkRbsiVq4VLi-xWz%7EdemJsrpiC-fthd0i2XuV9cWNzK14jsXEun8i1p18ORu5LbIRb3yzjb9UhYDh8THhUiGrm8F9Q24k1y3fkQVaYm%7EHlnk6si6bsekhoOeSjlo9IjvMBoeqIHBcz4APnR3bm72ZwYWbr537iAYrJdgZSytpoMIClCAAgWrM%7Es0vFI99NP7eSRNFjBfVYwbSlmrEXsVwB931XvL7zY4yoOMQcR-GR8rnTDpbX0SWOL45nsQGHCKdX7YXJ98bVNyMgebf8ZQSscd%7EPAoUr986GbNIYCTXgH7CJHQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
f1b8c5aef115b17307681385a03d9ddc
PDF Text
Text
INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY
THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY
AND OF PROTESTANTISM.
BY
JOHN ROBERTSON,
AUTHOR OF “THE FINDING OF THE BOOK.”
“ The Christianity of Christ is not one thing, and human nature another;—
it is human Virtue, human Religion, man in his highest moments; the effect
no less than the cause of human development, and can never fail till man
ceases to be man.”—Theodore Parker.
“ The simple believeth every word; but the prudent man looketh well to
his going.”—Solomon.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�“Far, very far be it from any devout mind, out of an unwarranted,
unreasonable, and most unnecessary jealousy, to arrest or stay the progress
of inquiry, or look with a timid and suspicious eye on any honest efforts
made to extend and diffuse the knowledge of nature. The. upright search
after truth can never be dangerous to him who lovingly engages in it, or dis
honourable to Him who is the God of truth. All scope is given to inquiry
into all the wonders, whether of the material world without, or of the moral
world within. It is your dignity, and duty so to inquire. You are men,
and you are commanded to be men in understanding. As men, you may
assert your privilege of investigating all the works of your Creator; and in
doing so, you are to follow truth whithersoever it may lead. You are not
constituted the judges of consequences and results. Your business is with the
facts and principles of truth itself. You are not to determine what should
be, or what might be,—you are to discover what is. This is the course be
coming alike the power and the infirmity of reason. Within this limit you
tread surely and safely. Cast aside, then, all alarm as to what may follow
from, your inquiries. Only prosecute these inquiries with due caution, and
put them fairly and faithfully together, so as to ascertain real facts and
draw none but legitimate conclusions. And we may fearlessly ran the
hazard of any inferences which they may suggest, confident that they will
all tend to shed new light and lustre on the wisdom in which the Lord hath
made all his manifold works.”—Dr Candlish, in “Reason and Revelation,"
pp. 139, 140.
“ Every one declares against blindness, and yet who almost is not fond of
that which dims his sight, and keeps the clear light out of his mind, which
should lead him into truth and knowledge? False or doubtful positions,
relied upon as unquestionable maxims, keep those in the dark from truth
who build on them. Such are usually the prejudices imbibed from educa
tion, party, reverence, fashion, interest, &c. This is the mote which every
one sees in his brother’s eye, but never regards the beam in his own. For
who is there almost that is ever brought fairly to examine his own prin
ciples, and see whether they are such as will bear the trial? But yet this
should be one of the first things every one should set about, and be scrupul
ous in, who would rightly conduct his understanding in the search of truth
and knowledge.”—John Locke.
�INTELLECTUAL LIBERTY
THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF CHRISTIANITY
AND OF PROTESTANTISM.
--------- ♦---------
PROPOSE an experiment. Before reading my
next sentence, I invite those who favour me with
their attention to write down, or to think out, as I
have just now been trying to do, such a general defi
nition and explanation of the word Priest, as shall
*
fairly describe, and apply to, most or all of the dif
ferent varieties of men, to whom the word is appli
cable.
Those who have done so may now compare their
definition with mine, and see whether they at all
agree or totally differ, and whether they contradict
or supplement each other.
The definition which I propose is, that a priest is
an officer or minister of a traditional or authorita
tive, and national or corporate, religious institution;
and, as such, his distinctive mission is to be an
exponent or advocate of a religious system or creed,
I
* “ Our word Priest is corrupted of Presbyter. Our
ancestors, the Saxons, first used Preostre, whence by further
contraction came Preste and Priest. The high and low
Dutch have Priester; the French Prestre; the Italian
Prete; but the Spaniard only speaks full Presbytero.”—
Packardson's English Dictionary.
�4
Reason and the Bible.
inculcating the belief or observance of certain dogmas
or ceremonies, as the fundamental and indispensable
condition of merit, privilege, and welfare, here or
hereafter.
The language of the consistent priest is never—
‘ Come, up hither. Open your eyes, look around, and
behold and judge for yourselves, as I judge for
myself, the goodness, the truth, and the reality, or
the wickedness, the falsehood, and the delusion of
those things to which I shall direct your attention,
and which I shall endeavour to make you understand.’
But his language is, ‘ Stand down. If you wish to be
regarded as a brother, and as a worthy member of
the church or of the community, you must not place
any reliance on the guidance of your own reason in
those matters which I instruct you to regard as
settled by the supreme authority; nor must you take
the liberty to investigate for yourself the evidences
of correctness and reality; but you must be content
to receive, with faithful and entire submission of the
intellect, the doctrines, the ceremonies, or the book,
which I hold out to you authoritatively as the revealed
Will or Word of God; and you must, in like manner,
faithfully accept and adhere to that interpretation or
application of what God has revealed, which has
been sanctioned by the traditions of the institution,
or by the institution itself, whose officer I am, as the
only true interpretation or application thereof, and
therefore as the rule and guide of your belief, wor
ship, and life.’ *
Reason is never invited by the priest to criticize,
test, and candidly weigh the evidence for and against
the authority to which he appeals. That authority
* “ The whole order of the clergy are appointed by God to
pray for others, to be ministers of his priesthood, to be
followers of his advocation, to stand between God and the
people, and to present to God all their needs, and all their
desires. Bishop Taylor, Sermon 6.
�Reason and the Bible.
5
is assumed to be supreme, and therefore above reason,
and beyond the reach of argument, commanding
absolutely the believing assent, with or without the
rational verdict, of all men to whom it comes, and in
some cases not even hesitating to doom, for their
unbelief, those who never heard of it.
*
The one fundamental argument of the priest, on
which his entire system of belief is based, is—Thus
saith the Oracle, or, Thus it is written. The truthful
ness of the oracle or of the writing, as well as of the
priestly or traditional interpretation, is postulated,
not proved. The priest does not profess to have,
but professes not to require, for himself or for
others, such evidence and arguments in support of
what he inculcates, as to secure the ratifying and
approving verdict of the unprejudiced inquiring
mind. His appeal is not primarily to the reason
and conscience of men, but to their prejudices and
emotions, such as those which arise from the influ
ence of traditions and customs, or from habitual
veneration and attachment to some external symbol
or standard of authority, such as a Church, a Pope,
an oracle, an image, or a book. He may, indeed,
welcome with approval, and may even condescend to
employ, a selection of evidences and arguments in sup
port of the supreme authority to which he appeals j
but such support is only regarded at the most as
secondary and subsidiary, and is never represented
by the consistent priest as the primary and essential
basis, on which to found and establish the supremacy
What are they that imbrace the gospell but sonnes of
God ? AV hat are churches but his families ? Seeing there
fore wee receive the adoption and state of sonnes by their ministrie whom God hath chosen out for that purpose, seeing also
that when, we are the sonnes of God, our continuance is still
vnder their care which were our progenitors, what better
title could there bee given them than the reuerend name
of presbyters, or fatherly guidesZfooto- Eccl. Pol.,
b. v., s. 78.
�6
Reason and the Bible.
of his authoritative standard or oracle. To find or
exhibit any evidence or argument against the genuine
ness of this assumed supremacy, is by the priest ac
cordingly denounced as a moral delinquency, a sacri
lege or blasphemy, not to be met with rational
reply and confutation, but to be simply abhorred and
condemned as treason against the Supreme.
The assertion of some supreme external standard
or symbol of authority, being thus the distinc
tive and fundamental doctrine of every priest, it
follows unavoidably that he practically assumes infal
libility for himself, or for the institution whose views
he expresses ; because he requires his assertion to be
believed without being tested, by the submission, and
not by the free action and verdict of reason, and be
cause he ignores or denies the right of reason to
investigate and to weigh impartially the evidence
and arguments on all sides, and so to judge of the
truth or falsehood—the certainty or uncertainty of
the supreme authority asserted by him. It is mani
fest that the supreme authority, thus dogmatically
and authoritatively ascribed to a book or to anything
external and apart from individual reason, not being
based upon the free appreciation of its intrinsic and
demonstrable merits and evidences, is practically
and truly based upon some other assumed authority,
to which reason is required to bow. It is impos
sible to get out of the dilemma, however much
sophistry may be employed to disguise it. The
man who declares to other men that a book or other
external thing is a revelation, and that its autho
rity is above reason, practically claims for himself
infallibility and supreme authority on that point, and,
by necessary logical implication, on all points.
If the supreme authority of the book, or other ex
ternal thing, is based on the manifest or provable
truthfulness and harmony of all that it attests, or
upon the clearness and completeness of all the evi
�Reason and the Bible.
7
dence regarding it, then reason must be invited and
employed to scrutinize its purport and its claims, in
order that these qualities may be ascertained and re
cognised. But if all such rational tests be rejected,
there is only one other ground that can possibly be
taken, and that is an appeal to another external autho
rity for support to the first. The claims of the high
est authority must either rest upon the manifestation
to reason of its evidence and merits, or else upon an
other authority behind it; and, in either case, that
which is appealed to must be at least equal in dignity
to that which it has to sustain. Perfection cannot be
rationally inferred where imperfection is discerned;
neither can infallibility be sufficiently attested by
aught that is fallible, nor supreme authority by aught
that is not itself supreme.
I conceive that thus far these remarks and reflec
tions have been so framed as to be fairly applicable
to the priests of many and widely different religions,
ancient and modern, as well as to those of popular
Christianity, both Catholic and Protestant. But my
readers will, of course, have understood that I have
kept the priests of Protestantism especially in view.
The modern Protestant Christian Churches, though
in many speculative inferences and doctrines widely
differing from each other, are generally understood
and represented as, all alike, asserting, appealing to, and
resting on, the infallibility or supreme authority of
the Bible, while renouncing all pretensions to infalli
bility of their own, as Churches or as men. None of
them, so far as I can learn, has ever ventured formally
to declare that the authority of the Church or of tradi
tion, as embodied in the “ Articles of Religion,” the
“Confession of Faith,” or any other “Ecclesiastical
Standard,” is sufficient to establish, and to impose
upon the human conscience, the duty of believing the
infallibility or supreme authority of the Bible,
or indeed the duty of believing any doctrine
�8
Reason and the Bible.
whatever. On the contrary, it is expressly declared
by every Protestant Church, that no Church is
infallible,—that Synods and Councils have erred,
and are Hable to err, from which the inference is
direct and inevitable, that any doctrine, resting
merely on such authority, ought to be held subject to
the free investigation, reconsideration, and inde
pendent judgment, not only of all succeeding synods
and councils, but of every individual who has light
enough to discern the vast difference, which dis
tinguishes faith in God and in truth from faith in
the faith of other men. And yet, with gross inconsis
tency and self-contradiction, partly in the several
ecclesiastical “ Standards,” but much more glaringly
in the ministrations of very many priests, the idea is
constantly inculcated, and therefore of course it
is widely entertained, that the traditional dogmas
of the Churches are indisputable and infallible, at
least on those points which are considered funda
mental and essential, and especially on this point, viz.
the supreme authority of the Bible; and that it is
blasphemous presumption for any inquirer to subject
their assertion on this point to rational investigation,
and to the free judgment of his individual reason.
*
They who are fallible are continually asserting that
the Bible is the holy, authoritative, infallible, Word
of God; and that no man is at liberty to form a dif* “Orthodoxy, finding itself unsafe in the domains of
argument, flies towards those of moral sentiments ; and just
at the moment when it might be expected to surrender, it
turns sharply round, and boldly charges reason with sin.
This is an alarming charge. Before this moral discovery, we
exerted our reason to the utmost of our power, confident
that we had no spiritual danger to fear : now, most unfortu
nately, we are made to suspect that our sin may be great in
proportion to the power of our arguments. What indeed, in
common language, we call pride, is usually connected with
power, and the existence of the latter is for most people, a
pretty strong presumption of the presence of the former.
It must therefore happen, that, when reason is accused of
�Reason and the Bible.
9
ferent opinion, nor has a right to investigate, nor
freely to discuss the evidence for and against their
assertion-, but that every man is bound to submit his
reason to that supreme authority above reason, which
they assert that the Bible rightfully claims and pos
sesses. Those who do so are driven to employ any
amount of sophistry to conceal from others and per
haps even from themselves the plain logical fact, that
to assert in this absolute way the infallibility or
supremacy of the Bible, and the imperative duty of
human reason bowing to its teaching, is really and
practically to assert the infallibility or supreme au
thority of the Church, or of the man, by whom such
assertion is made.
This absurd and self-condemned position appears
to be at present held, in some degree, by every Pro
testant Church. But far beyond the comparatively
mild and half-concealed absurdity of any Protestant
Confession, very many of those clergymen and clerical
men, who delight to be called “ orthodox,” habitually
state and vindicate this “ Gospel of Unreason ” in all
its barefaced breadth of boldness and inconsistency.
The attempt has indeed been often made, by rea
soning against reason, to reconcile freedom of thought
with intellectual submission to the Bible; “to re
concile Reason and the Bible,” by so displaying and
enhancing all available internal and external evi
dence in support of the Bible, and by so ignoring
pride, the charge will appear .already more than half sub
stantiated, if reason has been too hard for the opponents.
Power of any kind, unless it can reward and punish to a cer
tain degree, is not an enviable possession. I have no doubt
that if a sin, to be called pride of sight, had been as neces
sary to some influential class, as the pride of reason is to
the orthodox parties all over the world; every long and
sharp-sighted man, who wished to live in peace, and avoid
the scandal of discovering things which his neighbours either
could or would not see, would now be obliged to wear
spectacles.”—Observations on Heresy and Orthodoxy, by the
Rev. Jos. Blanco White.
�IO
Reason and the Bible.
and disparaging, or endeavouring to explain away,
all internal and external evidence of an opposite
kind, as to make it appear to many superficial thinkers,
or too willing believers, that the whole is in harmony
with every part, that all its doctrines and statements
are in perfect accordance with the evidence and
with each other, and that all the relative evidence
will bear the strictest investigation, being such as,
when justly weighed, will carry complete conviction
to every honest candid mind, appealing to the serious,
upright exercise of unprejudiced human reason, and
thus meriting and commanding the approving and
ratifying verdict of all but those who are too stupid
or too wicked to give it proper attention.
So long as the belief in the Bible was an honest
and sincere belief, such was the reasoning, variously
illustrated, by which that belief was sustained and
propagated. Such is the language of the- “ Articles,”
and especially of the “ Confession of Faith” :—
Confession i. 5. “ We may be moved and induced by
the testimony of the Church to an high and reverend
esteem of the Holy Scripture, and the heavenliness of the
matter, the efficacy of the- doctrine, the majesty of the
style, the consent of all the parts, the scope of the whole
(which is to give all glory to God), the full discovery it
makes of the only way of man’s salvation, the many other
incomparable excellencies, and the entire perfection thereof,
are arguments whereby it doth abundantly evidence
itself to be the Word of God.”
Such was the language of the Reformers in the six
teenth century, and of the great Protestant divines
in the seventeenth. Listen to Richard Hooker, one
of the most learned and gifted theological writers of
the post-Reformation period :—
“ Judge you of that which I speak, saith the apostle.
In vain it were to speak anything of God, but that by
reason, men are able somewhat to judge of what they hear,
and by discourse to- discern how consonant it is to truth.
Scripture, indeed, teacheth things above nature, things
�Reason and the Bible.
11
which our reason, by itself, could not reach unto. Yet
those also we believe, knowing by reason that the Scrip
ture is the Word of God............. A number there are who
think they cannot admire as they ought the power and
authority of the Word of God, if in things divine they
should attribute any force to man’s reason ; for which
cause they never use reason so willingly as to disgrace
reason............... By these and the like disputes, an opinion
hath spread itself very far in the world, as if the way to
be ripe in faith were to be raw in wit and judgment; as
if reason were an enemy unto religion, childish simplicity
the mother of ghostly and divine wisdom.”
Or let us consult, upon this subject, William Chil
lingworth, author of the famous work entitled “ The
Beligion of the Protestants a Safe Way to Salvation,”
published in 1637, and of the still more famous say
ing which is so often quoted: “ The Bible, and the
Bible alone, is the religion of Protestants ” :—
“ But you that would not have men follow their reason,
what would you have them follow ? their passions, or
pluck out their eyes and go blindfold ? No, you say ; you
would have them follow authority. In God’s name, let
them : we also would have them follow authority; for it
is upon the authority of universal tradition that we would
have them believe Scripture. But then, as for the authority
which you would have them follow, you will let them see
reason why they should follow it. And is not this to go a
little about—to leave reason for a short turn, and then to
come to it again, and to do that which you condemn in
others ? It being, indeed, A plain impossibility for any
MAN TO ■ SUBMIT HIS REASON BUT TO REASON ; for he that
doth it to authority must of necessity think himself to
have greater reason to believe that authority.”
It is not likely to be denied that these specimens
fairly and fitly represent the distinctive views and
teachings of the Beformers and early Protestant
divines, on reason as the basis of all religious belief,
and on the complete harmony which they conceived
to exist between reason and the Bible. Assuming,
as we well may, that their language is honest and
�12
Reason and the Bible.
sincere, and that they meant exactly what they have
said, it is clear that, as held by them, theirs was a
reasonable faith, and that they did not feel called
upon to settle any visible conflict between the claims
of reason and those of the Bible, nor experience any
difficulty in harmonizing these with each other, and
putting faith in both. Their religious belief was by
them identified with their intellectual conclusion re
garding the authority of the Bible; so that their
utterances on the subject express both the conviction
of their hearts and the rational judgment of their
minds. The same kind of reasoning may even now
be heard from some believers, in whose experience
these two things still go together, and from some
others who wish to make it appear that they find it so.
But the conflict which then slumbered, being
apparently unsuspected by religious men in those
days, has been since then steadily growing in urgency
and importance, exactly in proportion to the increas
ing diffusion of knowledge and general progress of
intelligence, until it has now become difficult to
find an intelligent thinking man who believes, as
the Reformers did, in both Reason and the Bible,
as harmonizing together, and mutually supporting
each other. The conflict has, in recent times, and
especially of late, become so manifest and notorious,
that a profession of faith, in the old alliance or com
promise of the two rival claims, now suggests ignor
ance, imbecility, or wilful deception; and the ordinary
experience of an inquirer is accordingly very different
from what it formerly was, for he finds that the
question fronting him no longer admits of any but
an alternative and one-sided solution ; so that, if he
does not shirk it altogether, and remain indifferent
or in suspense, he must decide for himself whether
his reason shall be subjected to the Bible, or whether
the Bible shall be subjected to his reason.
The reconciliation of the two is a task very seldom
�Reason and the Bible.
13
now undertaken for the public, or accomplished by
individuals for themselves, except by the uninformed,
the shallow-minded/ or the unthinking. Easy-going,
peace-loving clergymen may sometimes still be heard
trying it in the pulpit; but it has almost ceased to
appear in print, the advocates on both sides appear
ing to be nearly unanimous on this one point, that
such an undertaking is now hopelessly difficult, and
that a genuine reconciliation is henceforth impossible,
on any conditions short of the subjection of one
claimant to the supremacy of the other.
It is, therefore, not my purpose to enter here upon
an examination of the various methods of reconcilia
tion which have been suggested. Some of them are
utterly absurd, and even ridiculous; and it is safe to
say that none of them can have any plausibility be
yond what may be purchased by the free employment
of sophistry and assumption, tricks which, until
recent times, were comparatively safe from detection
and exposure, though it is gradually becoming more
difficult and more hazardous to employ them.
One of the latest and ablest attempts of this kind,
that of the late Dean Alford, in his “New Testament
for English Readers,” which may fairly be regarded as
embodying the best and most plausible features of all
previous attempts to effect the desired reconciliation,
has been most skilfully and completely sifted and
exploded in previous pamphlets of this series, which
probably most of my readers have seen, and which
any of them may easily procure.
*
My intention is to deal here only with the plead
ings and pretensions of those more numerous (at
least in Scotland), and in their own way more con
sistent, advocates of the Bible, who apparently do
not believe, as the old Protestant divines and the
* “Commentators and Hierophants,” Parts I. and II.
price Sixpence each. See list on the last page of this
pamphlet.
�14
Reason and the Bible.
Westminster Assembly did, in the possibility and
duty of the reconciliation, and who do not even seem
to desire it, preferring to insist, .as honest true Pro
testants never did, upon the absolute surrender and
submission of Reason to the Bible.
Those who hold the views which these advocates
express have, apparently without knowing it, as
completely departed in one direction from the stand
point of the men of the Reformation, as those who
require the submission of the Bible to Reason have
departed from it in another and opposite direction.
Both parties alike have felt compelled to settle the
question one way or another. Neither party has
found it possible to harmonize the conflicting claims,
nor to find any satisfaction in compromising them.
The one party has decided one way, and the other
another way, that question which the Reformers did
not take up, and did not feel called upon to settle.
Let neither of these parties be deluded with the idea
that they are maintaining the standpoint of the Re
formers with regard to the Bible. That standpoint
was, as they clearly tell us, the then generally admitted
harmony and agreement of Reason and the Bible. If we
only try seriously to imagine such men as the old
Protestant Reformers compelled, as both of the parties
in question have been compelled, to abandon that
standpoint, to acknowledge the irreconcilable anta
gonism of the two, and to take the one side or the
other, by deciding for themselves whether their reason
should submit to be judged by the Bible, or the
Bible to be judged by their reason ; we can scarcely
fail to understand which side ought to be taken by
true Protestants now, and which side savours more of
the old Popish superstition.
It has of late been remarked by many, that, instead
of grappling with, and undertaking to refute, in the
pulpit or in the press, any or all of the really formid
�Reason and the Bible.
15
able and increasing arguments of objectors,—those
who maintain the traditional dogma, that the Bible
is the Word of God, have for some time past, almost
without exception, been timidly affecting to treat
the arguments with silent contempt, while at the
same time treating the persons, by whom these argu
ments are urged, with wrathful condemnation instead
of any reply.
It is usual for them to say that none of these
arguments or objections are new, which, nevertheless,
some of them are, though surely age alone is no dis
honour ; and that they have all been, long ago, hun
dreds of times, satisfactorily answered. The ex
planation of which appears to be, that when the
minds of men were more easily satisfied with such
answers as might still be given, there was no lack of
satisfactory answers. Whether this sufficiently ex
plains it or not, the phenomenon is notorious, that
the arguments of the objectors are from day to day
becoming more general, more formidable, and more
convincing than ever; while the arguments in reply,
as distinguished from the mere denunciations by the
maintainers, are becoming more and more obsolete,
impotent, and worthless; so much so, that they seem
to have very much escaped the notice or memory of
both parties alike. Unquestionably, however, there
have been, and must have been, plenty of “ sound
orthodox” arguments and replies, which may have
done good service to their employers in their own
day and generation, though these might now have an
effect quite opposed to that which they were formerly
understood to have; because the question now agi
tating men’s minds is comparatively A new question,
to which the old arguments and replies cannot be
easily adapted, having been originally addressed to
the reason; whereas men would now employ them
to reason against reason—a peculiarly delicate task !
There was a time when a very distinguished
�16
Reason and the Bible.
Father of the Church, the earliest distinct witness
for the authenticity of the fourth Gospel, could
argue with acceptance that there must be four Gos
pels, and only four, because—there were four winds,
and four elements, and four beasts in the vision of
Ezekiel! Such an argument is of no use now.
There was a time, not so long ago, when it was
generally considered satisfactory to argue that, as
God’s ancient people were commanded to extirpate
heretics, and to destroy them utterly, so it was
clearly the duty of God’s people still to do the same
thing; and the stake, or the dungeon, or some suffi
cient penalty, was deemed by Catholics and Protes
tants alike, as it had been deemed by the Jews of
old, the most appropriate answer to all sorts of ob
jections. Such arguments are now out of date, at
least in this part of the world.
There has been a time, not yet gone by, though
we may hope that it is now gradually passing away,
when, beyond “ the three mechanical P’s,” the whole
idea of ordinary education has been, to furnish the
mind of the pupil with a complete panoply of stereo
typed ideas and ready-made conclusions, handed
down by tradition, regarding every branch of know
ledge, as well as regarding religion and the Bible.
It is only now, or of late years, that the idea has
begun to prevail, and no doubt is very rapidly
spreading, that, instead of merely cramming the
mind with assertions and dogmas, the far nobler
aim of education ought to be, the instruction and
training of each individual in the separate personal
use of his own mental faculties, by calling these
faculties constantly into exercise upon his own ex
perience and observation, as well as upon all his
lessons and studies, which for children ought to be
selected and directed by teachers or guardians,
having the principle of intellectual liberty rooted
in their hearts, and keeping that principle steadily
in view.
�Reason and the Bible.
17
The foremost educationists are now striving to1
discover the most effectual methods of accustoming
the young mind to think, to reflect, to investigate,
to compare, and to test everything for itself, search
ing everywhere, and always, for truthfulness and
reality, so that it may learn to know and understand
the certainty, or the certain doubtfulness, of every
thing in which it is instructed; and, above all, that
it may, as it ripens, become acquainted with its own
natural inherent right to judge for itself of the good
or evil, the truth or falsehood, the certainty or un
certainty of everything to which its attention may
be directed; of which right, at least in several of its
most important applications, the vast majority of
minds have hitherto been trained in profound prac
tical ignorance, thinly veiled, if veiled at all, by a
few fine-sounding phrases about the reverence or
respect due to this or that authority.
There cannot be a doubt about it, that a great
change in this direction, is coming gradually over
the whole united nation. There is at present a very
distinct prospect and intention of improvement. We
really do seem to be making a fresh start onwards
towards liberty and light. It is indeed both a grand
and a true thing to say, in the prophetic words of
our greatest orator,. John Bright,—“ I think I see,,
as it were, above the hill-tops of time, the glimmer
ing of the dawn of a better day, for the people and
the country that I love so well! ” It may seem rather
sanguine, but no longer seems chimerical, to hope
that even a middle-aged man may live to see the'
children of the people trained, each in the knowledge
and use of his or her birthright as one of God’s chil
dren,—the birthright of liberty,—complete freedom
of reason tod of conscience,—the very liberty which
the “Sons of God ” and “ enlightened ones ” have in
all ages striven, and often sacrificed themselves in
the attempt, to make mankind understand and use
B
�18
Reason and the Bible.
as their own. This is at once the scientific and the
truly Protestant, because truly Christian idea of edu
cation,—the education of the future,—a religious,
moral, and intellectual education.
Surely it would be an evidence of blind delusion,
or else of gross presumption and falsehood, were any
man to say that this aspiration is evil, or to condemn
it with opprobrious epithets as scepticism and infi
delity. It is the result and expression of Faith,—
religious faith in God, in Goodness, and in Truth, as
revealed to the inquiring mind, chiefly through the
contrasts drawn and discerned, between these intel
lectual conceptions on the one hand, and atheism,
idolatry, falsehood, or evil, on the other, by the free
and serious exercise of Reason—God’s gift for man’s
guidance, the conscientious verdict of which may
well be called, figuratively, “the Word of God” to
each individual. As to the duty or advantage of
faith in the faith of other men, whether these men be
the ancient authors of the Bible, or their more un
reasonable modern expounders, call me sceptic, or
infidel if you will:—only let the distinction which is
here drawn be clearly understood.
We may read the 145th Psalm, for example, with
intense appreciation of the sublime religious thought
which its stanzas express, and our minds may well
be filled with admiration and delight, especially when
due emphasis is laid upon the word “ ALL,” which
frequently recurs and appears to be the key-note of
the piece. If there be anything in the Psalm, such as
the phrase at the close of the 19th verse,—“ All. the
wicked will he destroy,”—which may seem to jar against
or contradict the rest, surely we may freely try to
interpret for ourselves the mind of the poet, so as to
harmonize the apparent discord, as by reflecting that
he has just before expressed his faith in God, as good
to ALL, upholding ALL that fall, and raising up ALL those
that be bowed down, and that therefore the meaning
�Reason and the Bible.
19
of what is said about the wicked must be, that God
will destroy or bring to an end all their wicked
ness, and thus raise up all those whom even their
own wickedness has caused to fall or to be bowed
down, so that there shall be no more any wicked.
Such liberties are taken by all commentators on the
Bible, under the guise of interpretation; but in
reality it is putting one set of words in place of
another ; and we may just as consistently altogether
reject the jarring note, either because we may not be
able to harmonize it with the rest, or because we may
find that its acceptance would upset all our ideas of
intellectual and moral perfection of character, as at
tributed to the “ Father of the spirits of all flesh/’ and
that it is therefore incredible or unintelligible to us.
This Psalm in a high degree, like every other lesson
in its own degree, becomes a revelation to our minds,
just in proportion to the clearness and force of the
free judicial verdict, which our reason and conscience
may be thereby stimulated and assisted to arrive at
regarding those matters which, to our minds, it illus
trates, or brings before our view.
Let us never forget, what it is mere priestcraft to
deny, that it is every man’s inalienable right, and his
duty, so far as it may be opportunely in his power,
as a man, as a Christian, and as a Protestant, to in
vestigate, examine, and judge every portion of the
Bible, as well as every other item of his information
and experience, and to arrive at his own individual
conclusions, with entire fulness of mental freedom.
The serious, honest, and deliberate exercise of this
freedom, is at least one true and real meaning of the
figurative phrase,—“ Faith in the Word of God,”__
which is a quite intelligible way of expressing a re
ligious. man’s experience of it ■ as are also the less
figurative phrases,
true wisdom,” “good under
standing,
liberation of the intellect,” “ rational
belief.”
�20
Reason and the Bible.
It is not improbable that some may condemn these
views, or protest against them, as seeming “ to exalt
reason to the place of God;" but the position here
maintained is merely that Reason is the faculty or
instrument with which God has endowed us, by the
proper personal use of which, alone, it is possible for
any of us to convert information and experience into
sound knowledge about anything whatever.
Those who may say that it is “ spiritual pride” and
“presumption” thus to test everything by the verdict
of Reason, ought to be reminded that, in so far as
Reason may be set aside, the only other test which
can possibly be substituted for it is that of our own
sentiments or emotions, such as veneration, esteem,
attachment, or fear; and this ought to make them
pause and reflect, before venturing to affirm that such
things as these ought to control our Reason, instead
of being regulated and controlled thereby; because,
in the clear and strong words of Archbishop Whately,
the humiliation of Reason which they require “ is a
prostration, not of ourselves before God, but of one
part of ourselves before another part; and there is
surely at least as much presumption in measuring
everything by our own feelings, fancies, and preju
dices, as by our own reasonings.” *
It is beyond a question, that there has of late been
a vast increase of open and avowed opposition to the
dogma, that the Bible, in all its parts and in all its
words, is the Word of God; and, though it is of
course less manifest, it is nearly as certain, that doubt,
unbelief, and silent opposition have increased to an
immeasurably greater extent.
It is also perfectly well known, and quite indisput
able, that the argumentative strength of the opposition
has of late been displayed with very much greater
vigour, fulness, and effect than it ever was in this
* Whately’s Notes to Bacon’s Essay on Truth.
�Reason and the Bible.
21
country before ; partly by the production of new evi
dence, criticism, and arguments ; but chiefly by the
more frequent and more extended publication, read
ing, hearing, and especially understanding, of the old.
With regard to the extent of publication, reading,
and hearing, however, it must be admitted that the
advocates of the dogma have hitherto had, and still
have, an immense advantage over their opponents.
Indeed, they may be said to have had, until recent
years, almost the entire influence of the pulpit, the
press, and the school, on their side ; and the rule is
clearly still the same, although the exceptions are
becoming more numerous. It is only in the matter
of understanding that the strength of the opposition
will bear any comparison; and were it not for this,
the Bible party would have no cause for their present
uneasiness and alarm. The assailants of the dogma
are constantly producing evidence and arguments,
which men can understand and feel the force of;
whereas the very few so-called replies, and the very
many assertions and so-called reasonings, of the de
fenders, are either not understood, or else understood
to be powerless.
It would be cumbrous, and it is not my plan, to
introduce here any quotations or reproductions of
the abundant evidence and arguments, which go to
prove that the dogma is false. Most of my readers
are, probably, in some measure acquainted with them;
and I cannot, for the present, do better than refer the
inquirer on this head to Mr Thomas Scott’s series of
publications, a list of which will be found at the end
of this pamphlet, nearly all bearing directly on the
point.
I prefer here to invite attention to the startling
effect, which the recent attacks of the comparatively
few assailants have had upon the attitude of the
vastly more numerous defenders of the dogma, and
to a few brief illustrations of the mode in which these
�22
Reason and the Bible.
attacks are being met, by some of the most zealous
champions of what is called “ orthodoxy.”
I have already observed how remarkably rare has
become the inclination of these champions to deal
with rational argument, and how chary they generally
are about grappling with the arguments of their op
ponents. Among those who are altogether innocent
of reasoning about the matter, are to be found the
most unrestrained shouters of anathema against the
objectors, whose objections they studiously evade.
They bewail the manifest increase of free thought
among their people, attributing all sorts of evil
motives to those who openly profess it, and proclaim
ing that “ God will surely punish" those who deny the
supreme authority of the Scriptures, but neverattempt
ing a word of rational reply or refutation.
Does any one doubt it, or think this exaggeration 1
There is abundance of evidence at hand, from which
only a few selections can here be made. Doubtless,
many of my readers are familiar with it. There is
even a strong probability, though the experiment has
not yet been tried, that, in Scotland at least, and I
suppose not in Scotland alone, the specimens, which
I am to quote, would be pronounced “ sound” and
“ orthodox” by the majority of clergymen of all deno
minations. Not a few might perhaps say that they
exemplify “ a somewhat indiscreet advocacy of the truth,”
or that they are decidedly “rather too orthodox;” but
it is very doubtful, whether any considerable num
ber of those who are included under the name Priest,
as defined in the beginning of this tract, would choose
to characterize these things as they deserve, viz.,, as
arrogant Popish assertions and malignant unchristian
calumnies, irreconcilable with reason, truth, and
evidence.
A lecture, addressed to the Students of Divinity,
at the opening of the Free Church College, Glasgow,
�Reason and the Bible.
in November 1870, by the Rev. Dr Gibson, Professor
of Divinity and Church History, on “ Some Present
Aspects of Religious Opinion,” supplies the following
*
illustrations.
“ The more conscience is enlightened by the religion of
Christ as the Great Prophet of His Church—in other words,
by the Bible, the revelation of His Holy Spirit—the more
do the principles of Christianity find in it an approving
response. Hence Paul says, 2 Cor. iv. 2 : ‘ By manifesta
tion of the truth commending ourselves to every man's con
science in the sight of God;' not to every man’s conscience
or reason as the supreme authority to judge, or—as heralded
by a candidate for notoriety in our city—the absolute and
divine authority of reason, conscience, and love as ‘the only
ground of faith,’ but the absolute authority of God in what
He reveals and commands, and to which reason and con
science are bound to submit. ( If they do not, it is at the
peril of the poor mortal who refuses, and puts his poor
reason and conscience and love, small and variable as his
love is, on a level with the authority of the God of truth
and holiness and love. This manifestation of truth to
every man’s conscience as in the sight of God, so as to
leave him without excuse, can be shown of every one of
the doctrines and precepts of Scripture.”
It is not a little surprising that Dr Gibson should
quote these words of Paul, in support of the dogma
that “ reason and conscience are bound to submit ” to the
doctrines and precepts of Scripture, as to “ the abso
lute authority of God in what He reveals and com
mands.” Why ? Because it is that very dogma
against which Paul is there contending, having just
before called the law of Moses “ the ministration of
death,” which, he says, “ is done away.” In contrast
to the deadness of that law, he proposes, by manifes
tation of the truth, to commend his own doctrine to
every man’s conscience. This sounds wonderfully
like appealing to “the authority of reason, conscience,
and love, as the only ground of faith.” But does not
* Published in the “Watchword,” a Free Church Magazine,
for December 1870, and for January 1871.
�24
Reason and the Bible.
the Professor himself virtually make the same appeal,
when he affirms that the truth of every one of the
doctrines and precepts of Scripture can be manifested
to every man's conscience in the sight of God ? It
becomes merely a question of experimental fact, as to
whether or not the assertion will stand the test of
application. Let it be applied, for example, to the
following passages, selected almost at random:—
Exod. xxxii. 27—“ Thus saith the Lord God of
Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go
in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp,
and slay every man his brother, and every man his com
panion, and every man his neighbour.”
Exod. xx. 13—“ Thou shalt not kill.”
Mai. iii. 6—“ I am the Lord ; I CHANGE NOT."
Gen. vi. 6—“ And it repented the Lord that he had
made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his
heart.”
Exod. xxix. 36—“Thou shalt offer every day a
bullock for a sin-offering for atonement.”
Levit. i. 9—“ And the priest shall burn it all on
the altar to be a burnt sacrifice, an offering made by
fire, of a sweet savour unto the Lord.”
Jer. vii. 21, 22—“Thus saith the Lord. - I
spake not unto your fathers nor commanded them in the
day that I brought them out of the land of Egypt,
concerning burnt-offerings or sacrifices.”
Heb. x. 6—“ In burnt offerings and sacrifices for
sin thou hast had no pleasure.”
Acts x. 34—“ God is no respecter of persons.”
Mai. i. 2, 3—-“Was not Esau Jacob’s brother?
saith the Lord : yet I loved Jacob, and I hated Esau.”
(“ The children being not yet born.”—Rom. ix. 11-13.)
Gal. v. 22—“The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy,
peace, gentleness, goodness, faith.”
Jud. xv. 14, 15—“And the Spirit of the Lord
came upon him, and he slew a thousand men.”
Deut. vii. 16—“Thou shalt consume all the people
�Reason and the Bible.
^5
which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine
eye shall have no pity upon them.
1 Sam. xv. 3—“Now go and smite Amalek, and
utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them
not; but slay both man and woman, infant and
suclclin/j.”
Isa. i. 18—“Come now and let us reason together,
saith the Lord.”
Rom. ix. 18-21—“ Nay but, 0 man, who art thou
that repliest against God 1” &c.
Mat. xxiii. 2, 3—■“ The Scribes and the Pharisees
sit in Moses’ seat: all therefore whatsoever they bid
you observe, that observe and do.”
If Dr Gibson really understands how “ the mani
festation of truth to every man’s conscience, as in the
sight of God, so as to leave him without excuse, CAN
BE shown ” of the many such doctrines, precepts,
and contradictions of Scripture as these, it is surely
most desirable, that he should verify his assertion by
showing the manifestation, because few men are
likely to discover it for themselves.
“ Conscience is a creature, therefore a subject, and not a
sovereign, and is under law. What law, and whence does
it proceed? It must rest in, and proceed from Him who is
its Lord. How, then, does He, or has He expressed it?
“Without entering into abstract discussion, I think I
may affirm that it cannot be in natural conscience as man
now exists in the earth. Why so? Because you cannot
survey it in the light of history, of facts, ancient or modern,
either in the most limited or in the widest range either of
time or place, without coming to the conclusion that its
decisions have been so contradictory as to put ‘ darkness for
light and light for darkness, evil for good and good for
evil, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.’ What, then,
is the expression of His Lordship? and where is it to be
found ? All Christian men must at once say, in the Law of
the Lord revealed in the Bible. It is plain that conscience,
as a subj ect, cannot have a right to rule above its Creator
and Lord. Equally plain is it that this law, if it can be
found, it must obey; in other words, there must be an au
�q.6
Reason and the Bible.
thority. But that authority must be God himself. As
suming that there is a judgment-day, and that man is
responsible for his belief, one can hardly imagine each
mortal man daring to plead, at the great day, his conscience
to determine the judgment of the Most High. The autho
rity, then, must be the authority of God himself. It can
not be anything short of its Lord.
“ It is to this authority I refer when I affirm that a dread,
and consequently a hatred of authority is one present aspect
of religious opinion.”
The argument, here employed against “natural
conscience,” is perfectly good against those who assert
human infallibility or the supreme authority of any
man’s mind, or of any man’s writings, over the minds
of other men. It is, therefore, perfectly good against
the authority claimed for the Bible. Why so? Be
cause we cannot survey the Bible in the light of his
tory and facts, without coming to the conclusion that
its laws, doctrines, and statements are often so con
tradictory as to put darkness for light and light for
darkness, evil for good and good for evil; as witness
the numberless irreconcilable contradictions, which
abound in many parts of it, and even in the Gospels.
*
Natural conscience or reason, when reasonably exer
cised, enables us to discern errors and contradic
tions, and tn draw lessons of wisdom both from
those of other men and from our own, as well as
from those of the Bible.
That which is “affirmed’' about “ dread, and conse
* For countless contradictions, both, historical and doctrinal,
in the Old Testament, I may refer the inquiring reader to
Mr. F. W. Newman’s “History of the Hebrew Monarchy,”
(published by Triibner and Co., London); and I take this
opportunity of acknowledging that the train of argument,
pursued in my own essay on “ The Finding of the Book,” was
suggested and greatly aided by Mr Newman’s most admirable
and instructive work..
For similar criticism of the New Testament, I would refer
especially to “ The Evangelist and the Divine.”—See list on
last page.
�Reason and the Bible.
o.7
quently hatred of authority,” if not purely imaginary,
would require to be supported by evidence showing
to what class of men it applies; because, as regards
such men as Bishop Colenso, Mr Voysey, the authors
of “Essays and Reviews,” or the large class who
sympathise with them, it would be a quite unfounded
calumny to affirm, that they are influenced by “ dread,
and consequently hatred of authority.” It would surely be
both more charitable and more correct to say, that
discovery and rejection offalse authority, proceeding from
the love of truth and the hatred of falsehood, is one
present aspect of religious opinion.
“ Protestantism is not the right in the sight of God to
hold any opinion which each individual pleases, but the
right and duty of every human being to regulate his belief
by the unerring standard of the Holy Scriptures ; and that
God being Lord, and the alone Lord of the conscience, no
man, or set, or combination of men, may resist his authority.
. . . . God’s Word is a law, distinct, intelligible, and
immediate; whereas any other, under whatever guise or
form—the Church, the Pope, the Reason—is a usurpation
of the rights both of God and man.”
When Dr. Gibson says that, if Church, Pope, or
Reason be set up as a law over the individual conscience,
they usurp the rights both of God and man, he utters
a truth which every free man and noble nature
would die to maintain. But then, Reason in this
connection cannot mean a man’s own reason; for it
must be something external to him, as Church and
Pope are.
Not to dwell upon the commonplace absurdity of
imagining that it is in the power of any individual to
believe what he pleases! the question forcibly suggests
itself,—Shall any man, such as Dr Gibson, or shall
any combination of men, such as a Protestant Church,
presume to come between other men and God, by
holding up before them a book, with the assertion
that all are bound to accept it as the Word of God,
�28
Reason and the Bible.
without any evidence, or without any right on their
part to investigate and weigh all available evidence,
—and that if they allow their reason to decide for
themselves individually, whether such assertion is
truthful, credible, uncertain, or false, they are guilty
of “ a usurpation of the rights both of God and man ?”
It would be well for Dr Gibson to ponder over the
following apostolic words :■—“Hast thou faith? Have
IT Tq thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth
not himself in that thing which he alloweth!” (Rom. xiv.
22.)
“Is it bigotry, fanaticism, ecclesiasticism ? Are these
what we wish to defend and establish, as is asserted by great
men and small men? If such things can be justly applied
to the authority of Holy Scripture, we at once say that they
are what we wish to defend and establish. But the asser
tion, by whomsoever made, is a calumny on us, and a blas
phemy against Holy Scripture.” (!) “ The antidote, we
have seen, is the revealed Word of God—the Holy Scrip
tures, to be received and believed, not on the authority of
any man or Church, but on the authority of God himself,
because it is the Word of God" (/) “speaking to us directly
and immediately as a man speaking to his friend. This is
the sure foundation of all belief. If God does speak in His
works, in the conscience, and, above all, in His written.
Word, which is invariable and ‘ endureth for ever,’—all
with His own mouth, or, which is the same thing, by His
own Spirit in His Word, man must listen and obey ; and it
is impious and at man’s peril if he disobey, reason or prate
about inner light or inner consciousness, or spirit of the age,
or public opinion, as he may. Of all the delusions into
which the weak and inexperienced are so apt to fall, none is
greater than that of imagining that running with the tide
is a proof of deep thought, of deep learning, or high courage
and independence. It is the very reverse—a proof of a
weak and slavish spirit that is afraid to stand by the truth
and abide the frown or sneer of men of no higher authority
than itself. Think for yourselves, gentlemen, as against
man ; but beware of thinking for yourselves as against
God.”
In reply to Dr Gibson’s questions, it is sufficient to
�Reason and the Bible.
29
observe that bigotry signifies stubborn adherence to an
unreasonable opinion, and that what he says about
“ blasphemy ” sounds wonderfully like fanaticism, or
excessive and indiscreet zeal.
It would be a grand good thing if all who heard,
and all who may read, the last quoted sentence, would
act upon the advice there given, by thinking for
themselves as against Dr Gibson, or as against any
man who may, like him, dictate dogma in their hear
ing. Scarcely even Dr Gibson will venture to say
that those who do so are therein guilty of thinking
forthemselves “as against God!” On the contrary
it will be, and has been, in many cases, found by in
quirers, that for them to acknowledge all the words
of the Bible to possess the authority of God, would in
volve on their part the quenching or resisting of that
“ Word of God,” which constantly addresses itself to
their reason and conscience in the Books of Creation
and Providence, as well as in the Books of Experience
and History, both past and present, including, of
course, the experience and history of which the Bible
is the vehicle. Just in so far as all these “ Books ”
are observed and studied, will the “Word of God”
which men are often compelled to hear and to obey
even when not listening for it, which can be heard
nowhere but in the reason and conscience of the indi
vidual, and which Dr Gibson also professes to recog
nise, be understood, and its authority be recognised
and acknowledged by Reason.
“ Running with the tide,” as the Professor phrases it,
is, in itself, neither a proof of deep thought and high
courage, nor of the reverse; but is a propensity of
our nature, so strong that good men, and even great
men, have often been led astray by it. In fact it is
much more than probable that this very propensity
restrains many at the present time from thinking
freely, and from saying what they think, about the
Bible. The frown, and sneer, and social intolerance
�3°
Reason and the Bible.
of orthodox people are still powerful enough to be
really dreaded by dependent or timid “ freethinkers;”
for there is no lack of evidence, to prove, that those
bolder ones who do venture to think and to speak
freely, against the unreasonable assertions of the
advocates for the supremacy of the Bible over Rea
son, are not yet “ running with the, tide." It cannot
be denied, however, that there are some signs of
the approaching turning time.
Throughout the whole lecture, there is not the
slightest allusion to evidence, either for or against
the dogma. It would, indeed, appear that, according
to Dr Gibson, all evidence is quite superfluous and
useless or worse; for there is not one single argument
employed by him in support of his dogma, which
does not openly and avowedly rest upon that dogma
itself, as in the passages quoted, and these are the
strongest and most argumentative which I have been
able to select.
It would be amazing, and almost incredible, if it
were not elsewhere so common, to find that an expe
rienced Professor of Church History, and a leading
minister of the Free Church of Scotland, should have,
on such an important occasion, nothing better to say
in support or defence of the dogma which he calls
“ the foundation of all belief," than a mere set of varia
tions upon the words—It is, and it is, and it is, and
you must believe and say that it is, and must never
allow yourself to think that it is not, because it is !
only because it is !
The fair inference from Dr Gibson’s language is,
that he identifies his own opinion with . Revelation.
To dictate dogma, without appealing to evidence, and
without condescending to rational argument upon the
evidence, is to assume infallibility. Dr Gibson mani
festly assumes either that he himself is infallible, or
that he is expressing the opinion of some other
(assumed) infallible man or men, when, regardless of
�Reason and the Bible,
31
evidence and in defiance of reason, he merely asserts
that the Bible is the Word of God. He seems to be
quite unconscious of the absurdity of a Protestant
Divine making his whole system of doctrine rest
upon an assumption of infallibility.
It appears too clearly that the faith professed and
taught by Dr Gibson, and by that very large class of
clerical men whom he may be taken as representing,
is of a radically different kind from that which Jesus
taught his disciples, when he opened, as it is written,
the eyes of their understandings by arousing, instruct
ing, and stimulating them to the consciousness, the
exercise, and the enjoyment of their own duty, right,
and power to judge and to decide by Reason what
they ought to believe, and what they ought not to
believe. Having learned of Jesus, they could no
longer submit their Reason, as they had for many
generations been taught to do, to the traditions and
superstitions of their forefathers and of their priests;
but burst away from the mental yoke of bondage to
these traditions, to these priests, and to the supreme
authority of their old written creed or law, with all
its sacrifices of blood and burnt flesh, to pacify the
wrath and propitiate the favour of a jealous and ter
rible God, whom the law represented as requiring
such sacrifices and delighting in them. We read
that the words of Jesus were quick and powerful,
and that men were astonished at his doctrine, for
that he taught as one having authority, appealing with
all the force of Truth to the hearts and to the minds
of those who understood what he said; and not as the
scribes, who appealed only to chapter, and verse, and
word of their sacred books. Let it be remembered
that the Scribes and Pharisees were not ignorant nor
wicked men, but were the educated, the respectable,
the orthodox, and the synagogue-attending class of
their day, who stood up for the authority of “ God’s
Word ” as opposed to Reason. But the spirit of Jesus
�^2
Reason and the Bible.
they could neither bind nor subdue, though they could
put himself to death; and accordingly we read
that those who became disciples of Jesus were made,
free by the power of the Truth—that they passed
from darkness to marvellous light—from bondage to
liberty—spiritual liberty—mental liberty—the glori
ous liberty of the children of God, whom they ad
dressed, after the example of their elder brother, as
“ Our Father,” worshipping Him only, not with the
signs and symbols of slavish fear and dread, such as
the shedding and sprinkling of blood; but in spirit
and in truth, in confidence and love, as became the
“ Sons of God." There is reason to fear the disciples
of men like Dr Gibson can have little of that exper
ience, which the disciples of Jesus appear so fully to
have enjoyed.
I have already shown that the unreasonable faith
of modern popular Christianity is essentially different
from the orthodox Christian faith of the true prophets
of Protestantism, which was based upon their convic
tion of the entire harmony and agreement of the
Word of God and reason, so that the one voice could
not contradict the other, and so that conflict between
the two, or subjection of the one to the other, was for
them entirely out of the question, liberation and not
submission being then, as always, the experience of
those who listened to the “ still small voice,” and
obeyed the Word of God.
Most of us can now understand that the Reformers
made a critical mistake, in assuming or fancying, as
they manifestly did, that the Bible quite harmonized
with Reason, and that there could be no real conflict
between them, any more than there could be a real
conflict between Reason and the “ Light of Nature,"
which they also recognised as another Word of God.
But we can also understand that they did not err cul
pably, as we judge their opponents to have erred.
They certainly cannot be charged with wilful blindness,
�Reason and the Bible.
33
nor did they ever proclaim the duty of believing the
Bible without investigation, which, on the contrary,
they thought it safe to challenge and invite, by for
mally stating the rational grounds on which their own
belief was based. That to which their reason sub
mitted was tried, judged, and approved by their reason.
Their reason submitted to itself, that is to its own in
terpretation of every Word of God; and all other
submission of Reason those noble men and true pro
phets cast behind them with scorn, as the genuine
disciples and followers of “ the Prophet of Nazareth ”
always have done; for, “ where the Spirit of the
Lord is, there is Liberty.”
The grand distinction, between them and the advo
cates of the Roman Catholic creed, was this very
point. The one party insisted upon the submission of
Reason to that which Reason was forbidden to test
and could not approve. The other party maintained
that:—
Confession of Faith, xx. 2—God alone is Lord of the
conscience, and hath left it free from the doctrines and
commandments of men which are in any thing contrary to
his word, or beside it, in matters of faith and worship.
So that to believe such doctrines, or to obey such com
mandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of
conscience; and the requiring of an implicit faith, and an
absolute and blind obedience, is to destroy liberty of conscience,
and reason also.'"
Strange, indeed, it is to find, that the old Popish,
Jewish, and heathen error, the root of all errors and
superstitions,—that Reason is bound to submit to
authority not approved by Reason, has grown up
again, in a new shape, in the churches which call
themselves Protestant.
While such theology is taught and published by
doctors and professors, reputed highly orthodox, in
high places of the Church, it is perfectly notorious
that, from very many pulpits throughout the land,
C
�24
Reason and the Bible.
the same kind of doctrine is preached, which has
been well called, “ the, Gospel of Unreason." . My own
observation and experience of this preaching are of
course local and limited; but, judging from what I
read and hear, I infer that it is exceedingly common,
and by no means confined to one Church, nor to one
part of Great Britain.
It is probable, therefore, that many of my readers
may have often heard such specimens as the following,
which are supplied by pencil-jottings of sermons,
recently taken in the pews by myself and friends in
whom I have confidence. They are all genuine and
unadorned.
“ Every word of this blessed book, brethren, is
God’s message to us. It is to us individually that
Jehovah there speaks.” . . . “ If we would profit by
the Word of God, we must mix faith with the hearing
and the reading of it. We must believe that every
word of it is true, simply on God’s own authority.”
. . . “ God requires of us a child-like unquestion
ing submission to the divine authority of the Bible,
and a willingness to hear the voice of God in all
that the Bible says to us.” . . . “ A sense of God’s
authority in the Bible, and unquestioning submission
to that authority, is the best evidence of true. Chris
tianity.” . . . “ An atheist is one who denies the
existence of God; an infidel is one who does not
believe that the Bible is the Word of God; and
there is not much difference between the two, for he
who does not believe that the Bible is God’s Word,
does not believe in the God of the Bible.” . . .
11 Beware of hardening your hearts against the Word
of God, which speaks to us in every sentence of the
Bible.” . . “ Before a man can resist the authority
of God speaking to us in the Bible, there must be a
process of hardening the heart, quenching conviction,
and self-deception, by false expectations of safety in
some other way than that which the Bible reveals.”
�Reason and the Bible.
35
... “I believe that opposition and hatred to the
justice of God as revealed in the Bible, the desire to
quiet the accusations of a guilty conscience, and to
get rid of the fear of punishment which the Bible
tells them their sins deserve, are the true reasons
why men begin to question the authority of the
Bible.” . . . “ Those who deny this authority would
not be convinced, even although the most convincing
arguments were presented to them. All their objec
tions and outrageous views have been again and
again refuted. It is in the heart and not in the
head that their opposition has its seat.” ... “If
scenes such as the miraculous deaths of Ananias and
Sapphira were to occur in our own day, would they
not make some of us tremble ! Many an awful sight
would be seen at our communion tables, if those who
come there, and eat and drink damnation, were to be
struck down, as Ananias and Sapphira were. Theirs
was a miraculous death ; and it may appear to some
unreasonable, that Peter should thus have had the
power to deal so terribly with them. But, my
brethren, beware of limiting the power and the
sovereignty of the Most High. Though it may be
unreasonable, it is none the less true—none the less
a miracle. Woe unto the man that disputeth with
his Maker—Almighty God ! ”
I refrain from any particular criticism of these
rash assertions and uncharitable thoughts, to which
the thinking reader will easily apply most of my
remarks on Dr Gibson’s lecture • but that in
quirers may be enabled to judge of the true name
by which to designate the teaching of these too
zealous advocates of the Bible, I subjoin the follow
ing sentences from very high authorities in the
Roman Catholic Church.
*
* All quoted, with Latin originals and particular references,
in “ The Moral Theology of Liguori,” by Pascal the Younger,
London, 1856, pp. 43, 140, 196, 47.
�26
Reason and the Bible.
St Ignatius, the founder of the J esuits, says in his
“Epistle on the Virtue of Obedience,” A.D. 1553,
“ If you would immolate your whole self wholly unto
God, you must offer to Him not the bare will merely,
but the Understanding also.” . . . “The noble
simplicity of Blind Obedience is gone, if in our
secret breast we call in question whether that which
is commanded be right OR WRONG. This is what
makes it perfect and acceptable to the Lord, that the
most excellent and most precious part of man is
consecrated to Him, and nothing whatsoever of him
kept back for himself.”
To show how this principle is applied, Cardinal
Wiseman says, in his preface to “ The Exercises of
St Ignatius —“In the Catholic Church no one is
ever allowed to trust himself in spiritual matters.
The Sovereign Pontiff is obliged to submit himself
to the direction of another in whatever concerns his
own soul.”
To this may be added from the “Exercises —
“ That we may in all things attain the truth, that we
may not err in anything, we ought ever to hold it as
a fixed principle, that what I see white I believe to
be black, if the hierarchical Church so define it.”
It may be instructive, as I am quoting, to take a
specimen of what these outspoken priests have said
about liberty of conscience. Pope Gregory XVI., in an
encyclical letter, dated August 1832, says:—“It is
from that most fetid fountain, indifferentism, springs
the absurd and mistaken notion, or rather raving of
madness, that liberty of conscience is to be recog
nised and vindicated. What has prepared the way
for this most pestilential error is, that ample and
immoderate liberty of opinion which is spreading
far and wide, to the ruin of Church and State,
though there are some men who, out of most con
summate impudence, maintain it is an advantage to
religion. This is the aim of that worst of all liberties,
�Reason and the Bible.
37
that never-enough-to-be-execrated and detestable
liberty of the press (Awe spectat det&rrima ilia ac
nunguam satis execranda et detestabilis libertas artis
librarian ad scripta gucelibet edenda in vulgus), which
some dare so loudly to demand, and even promote.
We are most horribly affrighted {Perhorrescimus'),
venerable brethren, when we see with what monsters
of doctrine, with what portents of evil we are over
whelmed (pbruamur)."
Nearly everything that can be said or thought
against this truly horrible presumption, which ignores
and hushes up, and utterly disregards or sternly con
demns all but its own one-sided kind of evidence or
argument, will be found, on reflection, easily and
equally applicable to such lectures and sermons as
those of which I have given specimens.
Is it not clear that this very same old SPIRIT OF
Popery, with only a slight alteration of form and
expression, has again got possession of our Protestant
pulpits and schools, and that much of the Reforma
tion work will have to be done over again, before we
can expect to get rid of its present unwholesome
superstitious influence in many branches of the
Church 1
The root and essence of Popery, and of all false
religion, the foundation of all superstitious belief, is
the submission of man’s Reason to some external
standard or symbol of “ Authority above Reason.”
The root and essence of true Christianity, of true
Protestantism, and of all true religion, the founda
tion of all rational belief, is the free exercise of Rea
son, liberation of the intellect, liberty of conscience,
private judgment.
These two kinds of religion or belief are as dis
tinctly opposed to each other, as are the two prin
ciples or foundations on which they respectively rest;
and there is no possibility of reconciling them, nor of
finding any tenable middle way or halting place
�28
Reason and the Bible.
between the two ; for all things are full of progress,
and the increase, as a general rule, is according to
the kind. The distinction, moreover, is not merely
such as there is between two opposite positions, but
rather such as there is between two opposite direc
tions; and no man can be travelling simultaneously
towards both the rising and the setting of the equi
noctial sun.
“All worship is idolatry,” says the great thinker,
Thomas Carlyle, the meaning of which appears to be
that every man who worships the Infinite or the
Unseen, worships his own symbol or conception of
the Infinite or the Unseen, which can in no case be
what the Infinite and Unseen is, so that the likeness
or unlikeness of the symbol-—the truth or the false
hood of the conception—can only be relative and
comparative terms, no possible symbol or conception
being absolutely, perfectly appropriate or true. But
he adds,—“Blameable idolatry is insincere idolatry,”
the meaning of which evidently is that, when doubts
have to be stifled, because the only possible solution
of them is unbelief,—when the voice of Reason is
disregarded, that another voice may be obeyed, which
Reason may not test, and therefore cannot approve,
—then begins false worship or blameable idolatry.
So long as there is no conflict between Reason and
Authority,—between the conscience and the Idol, the
worship may be reasonable and sincere, the idolatry is
not blameable, for “ where there is no law there can be
no transgression of the law.” But, so soon as the
conflict arises,—so soon as the antagonism is known
and felt by any individual, all true worship of the old
symbol or conception is at an end for him. Carelesslessness, indifference, and mental sloth may, for a
time, swell the ranks of neutrality; but every serious,
thoughtful mind is, in such circumstances, unable to
rest until it has made the choice, by deciding between
the rival claims of Reason and Conscience on the one
�Reason and the Bible.
39
hand, and of Authority, Tradition, or the Idol, on
the other.
Such is the time in which it is our lot to live.
The conflict has arisen, and has come to such a height,
that it is, now and henceforth, difficult for any think
ing man not to know and feel the antagonism between
the rival claims for supremacy of Reason and the
Bible. Every serious mind is now again being chal
lenged and compelled to make a choice, by determ ining whether the supreme authority of the Bible shall
be maintained by the submission of Reason, or
whether the supreme authority of Reason shall this
time again triumph over the worship of an Idol, con
demned by Reason, over the asserted and assumed
divinity and authority of a book, said to be the Word
of God, but with which Reason does not and cannot
harmonise, as Reason can and does harmonise with
every true Word of God.
The startling fact, to which men are day by day
awakening, is, that this question between Reason and
the Bible, which is at present challenging the verdict
of every inquiring religious mind, is just the very
same old question in a new form, as that which men
were invited, and many constrained, to settle for
themselves individually, at the time when the first
clear light of Christianity shone upon the supersti
tious gloom of J ewish and heathen traditional beliefs,
and again at the time when the dawn of the Protes
tant Reformation broke forth amidst the darkness of
Popish unreasonableness and intellectual submission
to authority. The love of truth and of humanity is
now again constraining men here and there to stand
forth, as of old, against dogmatism and superstition,
and against the antiquated and obstructive idea, that
those who ought to be the leaders and guides of the
people in ascertaining whatever is truest and best,
should be bound by oaths and bribed by emoluments
to maintain the existing fabric of opinion and custom.
�40
Reason and the Bible.
Not from Christianity, nor from Protestantism, have
we received “ the spirit of bondage again to fear.’
Why should not our religious teachers be, as our
scientific teachers are, free to follow evidence, truth,
a,nd fact, wherever these may lead, no matter what
existing theory or practice may thus be imperilled or
overthrown ? Why should they not stir up the gift
of God which is in them, as the Apostle Paul says to
the young preacher, “ for God hath not given us the
spirit of fear; but of power, and of love, and of a
sound mind ? ” Fear cannot enlighten the mind, nor
enlarge and strengthen the understanding—cannot
elevate the emotions, nor purify the affections—can
not subdue the will, even when it forces compliance
or assent—cannot convince the reason, although it
may stifle inquiry and discussion. There may be
much internal rebellion, even where there is so much
external submission and conformity as may be thought
necessary for safety or for comfort. Every one knows
that this is a common fact of daily observation, not
only in religion, but also in politics and in family
affairs. But surely it is the very height of folly to
imagine that we can propitiate or please the Father
of our spirits by being afraid to think. Surely it is
gross superstition to be deterred, by dread of .His
displeasure, from the freest, fullest, upright, serious
exercise of reason. “ If anything is clear,” says an
American writer, “ it is, that faith is large in pro
portion as it dares to put things to the proof. Fear
and laziness can accept beliefs ; only trust and cour
age will question them. To reject consecrated opi
nions demands a consecrated mind; at all events,
the moving impulse to such rejection is faith—faith in
reason ; faith in the mind’s ability to attain truth ;
faith in the power of thought—in the priceless worth
of knowledge. The great sceptic must be a great
believer. None have so magnificently affirmed as
those who have audaciously denied ; none so devoutly
trusted as they who have sturdily protested.”
�Reason and the Bible.
4i
It is not unusual for Bible advocates to declare
that they cannot reason at all with those who deny
the infallibility and supreme authority of the Bible,
because they cannot reason, say they, about that to
which reason is bound to submit, and on which all
reasoning must be based. To dispute or to deny the
supremacy of the Bible is, according to these men,
the same thing as to dispute or to deny the supremacy
of God. They apparently do not see the obvious
fact, that such a declaration is equivalent to a claim
of infallibility for themselves or for their own opinion
that the Bible is infallible : or else they would never
presume to say, that to contend against their opinion
about a book is to contend against God. Can they
not understand that, even though their assertion
about the Bible were clearly and unmistakably set
forth in the Bible itself, which, however, it assuredly
is fiot, it would still be inexcusably absurd to main
tain, that doubt or distrust of God is shown by those
who express their doubt or distrust of any of the
matter recorded in the Bible by the hands of men 1
It seems almost incredible that any intelligent mind
should fail to perceive the obvious, wide, and essential
distinction between these two kinds of doubt or
distrust; but yet it is too well known to need proof,
that many of our teachers think, or at least say, that
these two different things are the same, and both
alike criminal. Who has not heard or read thenstupid declarations, that to trace and exhibit the
various marks of human ignorance, error, and im
perfection, which abound in the Bible as in other
ancient books, is God-dishonouring blasphemy, which
He will surely punish ! No less weak and absurd
would it be for any free-thinking man to be cowed
into submission, or even into deference, by such un
reasonable and presumptuous assertions as these,
than it would be for an educated European to be
similarly influenced by the candid and common
�42
Reason and the Bible.
assertion of an orthodox Chinese, expressing his en
tire confidence in the certainty and truth of his
traditional belief, that the people, customs, and
opinions of the “ Celestial Empire ” are incomparably
superior to all others, and that all men of the Euro
pean persuasion are “ outside barbarians and devils.”
What, then, it is asked, is the use of the Bible 1
Why should it not be utterly abolished 1 If it is not
infallible, it is not to be trusted ; and if it is not to
be trusted, it can hardly fail to mislead ; therefore,
it ought to be destroyed. Freethinkers are often
told that, if they would be consistent, they should
argue thus, and should set the example by throwing
their own Bibles in the fire. I myself have been
thus addressed by “ orthodox ” clergymen, and have
been misrepresented by others as if I argued thus.
It might suffice to reply that the same argument,
if sound, would condemn all the treasures of litera
ture to the flames. The Bible is not infallible;
therefore, it ought to be destroyed. No other book
is infallible; therefore, all other books ought to be
burnt. From Homer to Tennyson, from Herodotus to
Froude, from Plato to Mill, from Aristotle to Hux
ley, from Zoroaster to Dr Cumming,—poets, histo
rians, philosophers, men of science, and divines have
all been fallible, and often in error, whatever pre
tensions to the contrary may have been set up by
themselves or by their admirers ; therefore, destroy
the works of them all, so that none may henceforth
be misled thereby ! Obliterate all the records of the
past, so that we and our children may .be free from
the dangerous influence of past delusions and mis
takes; because in none of these records can be found
perfection or infallibility.
The argument thus refutes itself, and the refutation
applies especially to the Bible. Books, old or new,
are valuable and useful just in proportion as they
�Reason and the Bible.
43
enable the student to profit by the varied experience,
culture, and progress, and even by the errors and
failures of other men. Modern thought and educa
tion, from the village school to the highest walks of
learning, are the still progressive fruits of accumu
lated ages •, and books have, ever since their first
employment, been the safest and most effectual vehicle
for the transmission and propagation thereof from one
age to another.
But let authority set the seal of assumed infallibi
lity upon any one book, and its usefulness will be at
once greatly impaired, if not entirely destroyed. In
stead of a help, it will soon become a hindrance, and
so it is now with the Bible. By the dogmatic ascrip
tion of infallibility and supreme authority, equally
and indiscriminately, to the whole of its contents, it
has come to be regarded through a mystic veil or
cloud of superstition. The intrinsic, direct, and selfevident inspiration of some portions has been de
graded and obscured, by placing these on the same
level with those of an entirely different and even
opposite character; the inspiration of the latter being
assumed and asserted to be no less an authoritative
fact, though neither self-evident, intrinsic, nor direct,
as judged by the free-thinking mind. The undeniable
majesty, truth, and beauty of very many passages are,
by this arbitrary interposition of traditional dogma,
confounded by reduction to equality with the weak
ness, meanness, or repulsiveness of others, which, but
for such interposition, reason would now universally
judge to be evil or incredible. The intellect and
moral conscience of men are stunted, distorted, and
hindered in their growth, by external authority train
ing and constraining one faculty of the mind to usurp
the province of another—by subjecting reason to the
religious sentiment—or, in other words, by cultivating
superstition.
The great value, interest, and use of the Bible, far
�44
Reason and the Bible.
from "being negatived or even impaired, are, in fact,
only discovered or vastly enlarged, when it is ap
proached as a venerable record of human thought,
experience, trial, and progress—the divinely appointed
education of mankind. The study of past errors,
faults, and failures is not less useful nor less instruc
tive than that of past wisdom, worth, and success.
Both alike are “ profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for correction, and for instruction in righteousness
__ « for WHATSOEVER THINGS WERE WRITTEN AFORE
TIME were written for our learning, that we through
patience and comfort of the Scriptures might have
hope” of better times to come for us and for
humanity.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Robertson, J. M. (John Mackinnon)
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 44 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from KVK.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1871]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5516
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Protestantism
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 (Intellectual liberty: the fundamental principle of Christianity and Protestantism), 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
Christianity
Conway Tracts
Faith and Reason
Protestantism
Reason
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1826f24fe7f5af625994ef558ade7392.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=uvguzi6dFbO9RxHL6AgizoFfqc8bgcr2lRjcurBZbeycr9ECFut5hYy9ihfIu1ttvUFDHQ9qTioTEsQEn-SGKrEzE8pale3syDQAocey%7EB0vnw3QfjuVODmz6mGfJqidDaSUfqk2QqIhWja8EqfEwHKdrqQ98cisGDsWtSm4v4h77GSVFq20jmHXHo3IHy9IY6ATCFZss8E8IJQP1HuijDlUOSUu6zuuu8fktjCkjx4E-IcHOkcUlV2DYGuVxpb%7EQfq7J1RjTimbXiQQADXrMPj0oMfyQSHIElHPQo0gpI%7EPpNni92wR9wXwSZePv0eSkqvRKk6DXjEz-kY7sLpMSw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
361c044b83ccf85a3e8dbef19496e1be
PDF Text
Text
THE
BEAUTY OF HOLINESS,”
AND
THE HARP OF HELL.
BY
SALADIN,
AUTHOR OF “ GOD AND HIS BOOK,” ETC.
London:
W. STEWART & CO., 41 FARRINGDON ST., E.C-
�New Edition, price is., by post is. id.
THE CONFESSIONAL:
ROMISH AND ANGLICAN.
An Exposure.
By SALADIN.
Contents:—Introduction — Licentiousness of the
Pre-Reformation Church—Lechery of the ConfessionalRitualism : “The Priest in Absolution”—The Anglican
Confessional—Ineffectual Efforts to Suppress Reforming
Tendencies in the Anglican Church—Confessions of an
Escaped Nun—Extracts from Dens and Liguori—Ex
amination of the Church’s Claim to have Fostered
Learning : Pier Attempts at Continency even more
Ruinous than her Self-indulgence—The Relative Crimi
nal Statistics of Catholicism and Protestantism—Ap
pendix.
London:
W. Stewart & Co., 41 Farringdon Street, E.C.
�Q(,cThe "Beauty of Holiness.”
“ Bible Extracts and Assertions in Proof of its Origin ”
is the title of a brochure which I have received by post.
Like all works which feel their position before the law
rather shaky, no printer’s or publisher’s address is given ;
and thus, to escape the possibility of prosecution, by
doubtful means this work has leapt into the greater
evil of making successful prosecution certain, should any
one feel it to be his mission to set the law in motion.
The compiler’s name is not given; but the author from
whom the compilation is made is well known; he is
none other than the Christian deity, and, as he is the
author of one literary production only, and every babe in
this country knows the name of his book, and as my forte
is not supererogation, I need not name it here.
When I was a boy I read a work entitled “ Dodd’s
Beauties of Shakespeare,” this anonymous brochure
should be entitled “Somebody’s Beauties of Deity.” I
confess I do not know much of Deity; but, from the
extracts from his writings which are before me, he must
be a very plain-spoken sort of person, who certainly calls
a spade a spade, and that with a vengeance too. Judging
from modern standards of etiquette, he must evidently
have spent a good deal of his life among costermongers
and the rest of it as bully in a maison-de-joie. Should
any of his own well-paid priests resent this as an asper
sion upon the culture and gentlemanly bearing of “ the
Lord,” I have the pleasure to refer them to what “Rabshakeh said unto them,” * and to the pleasing little
anecdote anent Judah and his daughter-in-law.f “The
* 2 Kings xviii. 27.
f Genesis xxxviii., passim.
�THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
4
Lord,” judging from the extracts from his book, maybe a
decent enough body in his way; but he can hardly be
described as a cultured writer, and he would certainly be
very questionable company at a young lady’s tea-party.
He has not had the advantage of having James Boswell
for a biographer; but he has got along remarkably well
without him ; and I make bold to say that Dr Johnson
and Jehovah-jireth are the most minutely-biographed
persons in the temple of Fame, and Jehovah has the
advantage of Johnson in this—he himself is the recorder
of his own life and achievements. It must be admitted
that these achievements evince a remarkable versatility
of talent. In his autobiography I find that he “ created
the heavens and the earth,” but that all that he did sub
sequently was not on so magnificent a scale. After
creating the heavens and the earth he did not “ live up to
it,” for I read that, condescendingly, he spued and sent
scabs and winked, and chatted with the devil, and was
troubled with his bowels, and took no pleasure in men’s
legs—neither do gentlemen who go to the Alhambra to
see the ballet; they have no pleasure in men's legs,
and in this they resemble “ the Lord.”
I should be inclined to think that talents that range
from world-making to spueing and winking are of an
order to which the Admirable Crichton could not have
held a candle. The compiler of the “Bible Extracts” has
arranged, with loving care, a list of the feats of the
“ Almighty Maker of heaven and earth.” With a pious
hand, I transcribe them here for the refutation and dis
comfiture of such as allege that of Deity nothing can be
known. I transcribe chapter and verse, which proves
to demonstration that a great deal can be known about
him:—
God
God
God
God
God
God
God
God
walks—Gen. iii. 8.
talks—Deut. v. 24.
smells—Gen. viii. 21.
works—Gen. ii. 2.
rests—Gen. ii. 2.
repents—Gen. vi. 6.
flies—2 Sam. xxii. xi.
sits—Psalm xcix. 1.
�THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
5
God stands on a wall with a plumb-line—Amos vii. 7.
God spues—Rev. iii. 16.
God laughs—Psalm xxxvii. 13.
God runs like a giant—Job xvi. 14.
God roars like a lion—Hosea xi. 10.
God curses—Gen. viii. 21.
God changes his mind—Exodus xxxii. 14.
God sends lice—Exodus viii. 16.
God sends scabs—Deut. xxviii. 27.
God wrestles with Jacob—Gen. xxxii. 24, 26, 30.
God a tailor and clothier—Gen. iii. 21.
God writes on stone—Deut. iv. 13.
God afraid of man—Gen. iii. 22, 23.
God is a husband—Isa. liv. 5.
God shows his back parts—Exodus xxxiii. 23.
God shaves with a razor that is hired—Isa. vii. 20.
God winks—Acts xvii. 30.
God chats with the devil—Job. i. 7, 8.
God hardens men’s hearts—Exodus xiv. 4.
God takes no pleasure in men’s legs—Psalm cxlvii. 10.
God argues—Job xxiii. 4.
God graves on his palms—Isa. xlix. 16.
God delivers men into the devil’s power—Job ii. 6.
God charges his angels with folly—Job iv. 18.
God distrusts his saints—Job xv. 15.
God causes adultery—2 Sam. xii. xi.
God causes suicide—Jer. viii. 3.
God causes cannibalism—Jer. xix. 9.
God causes desecration of the dead—Jer. viii. 1, 2.
God causes indecency—Isa. xx. 4.
God orders the slaughter of men, women, and chil
dren—1 Sam. xv. 3.
God causes lying—1 Sam. xvi. 1, 2.
God punishes the guiltless—1 Sam. xv. 3.
God uses low language—Jer. xxv. 27.
God is said to possess foolishness—1 Cor. i. 25.
God makes Moses a god—Exodus vii. 1.
God sanctions borrowing without repaying—Exodus
xi. 2 ; xii. 36.
God creates evil—Isa. xlv. 7.
God is a merchant—Hosea xii. 7.
God loves to oppress—Hosea xii. 7.
�6
THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
God is troubled in his bowels—Jer. iv. 19.
God smites his hands together—Ezek. xxi. 17.
God speaks to fishes—Jonah ii. 10.
God breathes—Gen. ii. 7.
God’s breath causes frost—Jobxxxvii. 10.
God asks questions—Gen. iii. 9.
God is a baker—Exodus xvi. 4.
God works with his fingers—Psalm viii. 3.
God swears—Deut. xxxiv. 4.
God bares his arm—Isa. lii. 10.
God is in hell—Psalm cxxxix. 8.
God considers some men as a smoke in his nose—
Isa. lxv. 5.
God gives bad laws—Ezek. xx. 25.
God finds rest refreshing—Exodus xxxi. 17.
God rewards transgressors—Prov. xxvi. 10.
God creates the wicked for the day of evil—Prov.
xvi. 4.
God is a man—Exodus xv. 3.
God rewards fools—Prov. xxvi. 10.
God is a consuming fire—Deut. iv. 24.
God orders men to drink, be drunken, and spue—
Jer. xxv. 27.
God blasts through his nostrils—Exodus xv. 8.
God requests Moses to “let him alone”—Exodus
xxxii. 9, 10.
God came down to earth in form of a bird—Luke
iii. 22.
God is like soap—Mai. iii. 2.
God takes away nose jewels, etc.—Isa. iii. 21.
God hisses—Zechariah x. 8.
God visits the earth to inspect buildings—Gen. xi. 5.
God was born—Colos. i. 15.
God is weary with repenting—Jer. xv. 1.
God spreads dung on men’s faces—Mai. ii. 3.
And His Son
Jesus orders us to hate our parents and all belongings
—Luke xiv. 26.
Jesus ordered swords—Luke xxii. 36.
Jesus tells us to be improvident—Luke xii. 24.
Jesus sent devils into pigs—Mark v. 13.
�THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
7
Jesus says he came to cause war, not peace—Matt,
x. 34.
Jesus rode upon two animals at once—Matt. xxi. 7.
Jesus supped after resurrection on broiled fish and
honeycomb—Luke xxiv. 42.
Jesus says all who disbelieve him shall be damned—
Mark xvi. 16.
Jesus says all who ever came before him were as thieves
and robbers—John x. 8.
If the work before us had been a chemical, instead of a
literary, production, it might have been put into a phial
and labelled “ Pure Essence of Dunghills.’’ Only a
stern sense of duty could have induced the compiler to
engage in such a labour of disgust. I have gone through
the Greek and Roman classics, Boccacio, and “ The
Merry Muses,’’ as well as the pages of “ Thomas Little,”
and Tobias Smollett; but “the Lord” beats all of them
at writing clean dirt.
The worst of “ the Lord ” is, he has few traits to redeem
liis coarseness. We find in Psalm xxxvii. 13 that he
laughs : but it certainly cannot be at his own jokes. Wit
will redeem much; but pure coarseness is irredeemable.
However, let me say it to his credit (I have always
tried to give the very devil his due), he never seems, to
me, to indulge in a libidinous tale just for the mere
love of the thing. At a moment's notice he will go off
from his dirt into a rigmarole about breeches and candle
sticks and fringes, which shows that he does not deal in
dirt for dirt's dear sake, but that he is such an unsophisti
cated old innocent that he does not know dirt when
he sees it. In this age and country we have come to be
aesthetic and fastidious ; and, as for “the Lord,” “his
ways are not our ways, nor his thoughts our thoughts,”
and, for this same fact, those who glance at the “ Bible
Extracts’’ will be devoutly thankful.
Again, in the interests of “the Lord,” I willingly admit
that there is no absolutely fixed standard of taste, more
than there is an absolutely fixed standard of morals. The
England that accepted the English Bible of 1611 was
leagues away from the England of to-day. Its English
is that of the Shakspearian era, and, upon the whole,
�THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
Shakspeare is just about as indecent as “his maker.”
The tastes of England and Heaven were, at that time,
about on a par ; and, with the then standard of taste, the
Bible did not strike any one as indecent. The Black
friar’s theatre, in which Shakespeare himself had a share,
has been described, and, from the description, we can
gauge the state of public taste and morals. There was
no chalet to which the playgoers could retire; but, as
substitute, a big tub stood on the floor, serving an ex
ceedingly useful, if not over-ornamental, purpose. Plain
old Jah, in i Kings xvi. ii, and elsewhere, refers to
a “wall,” and the English playgoers, who used their
tub and cracked their now unspeakable jokes, did not
see anything improper in Jehovah-jireth and his “wall.”
So much for the manners of England about the time
when the country was first made acquainted with the
manners of Heaven.
Gadzooks and marry-come-up, Jehovah could get along
well with Queen Elizabeth ; but he is out of all harmony
with Queen Victoria. Elizabeth could have read these
“ Bible Extracts,” and had a good guffaw over them with
Cecil or Raleigh ; but the sight of the very first page
would drive Victoria into the hands of Sir William Gull.
The truth is, modern intellect has not done so much as
modern sentiment to knock a hole in the drum of
Holy Writ. The flames of hell still roar and sputter
away at Spurgeon’s Tabernacle, and at one or two
Bethels of the vulgarian order; but nowhere that culti
vated nineteenth-century men and women do congregate
is the doctrine of hell now preached. Hell has not been
reasoned out of the Christian creed; it has simply been
rejected because it is revolting to the moral sentiment of
modern times. When you reason Hell away, you will
reason away Heaven also; for, in theology, they are
correlated, and stand or fall together.
Heaven still
stands, not because it is more reasonable than Hell, but
simply because it is not so repugnant to the moral senti
ment of this latter quarter of the nineteenth century.
zEstheticism has not reached a very high level even yet.
It can stand wing-flapping and “holy, holy!” but it
draws the line at chain-clanking and yelling and brim
stone.
�THE BEAUTY OF HOLINESS.
9
The “ Bible Extracts ” is far from commendable
reading; but the disagreeable task of noticing it, and
what must have been the still more disagreeable task of
compiling it, will be served if it, to some extent, help to
rend away the veil of pseudo-sanctity which hangs around
the book which is the Protestant fetish. It cannot be
urged that it is a small matter that the Bible offends
against the canons of taste; for, had I space, I could show
that this is only another way of saying that it offends
against the canons of morals. True, the standard of
morals differs in different ages ; but the standard of
morals which obtains in any particular epoch is, practic
ally, fixed and immutable for that epoch, and to attempt to
roughly and hastily upset that standard is more than a
venial offence against Mrs Grundy and Mrs Gamp—it is
treason against the best interests of mankind. Such
treason Holy Writ is perpetrating in Europe to-day wher
ever it is read; but the saving clause is, it is not read
by one in a thousand even of those who pretend to
regard it as infallible and associated with the highest
solemnities of their career in life, and their destiny when
life is over. The principal part of the Bible with the
ordinary Protestant John Smith is the fly leaf in front of
it, on which are inscribed the date of his marriage with
Janet, and the dates of the births of all the young Smiths
which were the result of the union of John and Janet.
If the book be big enough and gilt enough, it is also
useful for laying on the window-sill with a small anti
macassar over it, the whole surmounted with a little vase
of flowers. The ordinary chapel-goer is as ignorant of
the Bible as he is of the Koran or the Zend-Avesta.
And it is through this very ignorance of it that it has
been possible for him to rise to an elevation of purity
and delicacy of word and deed which leaves “ the Lord ”
and his crude and plain-spoken book far behind—a land
mark nearly out of sight, away back in the wilderness
through which the human race has marched to the
comparatively green pastures and relatively still waters
that are now theirs to enjoy.
�The Harp of Hell.
Robert Burns wished, in the interest of the deil him
self, as well as in the interest of others concerned, that
he (the deil) might—
“ Aiblins tak’ a thocht and men’.”
The deil has certainly followed the suggestion. He is
not the malefic fiend he once was; and, as I have said, he
is the most interesting character in the Christian drama,
and he has the most “go ” in him. His personal friend,
Burns, wrote an address to him, distinguished by great
candour, and John Lapraik responded on behalf of the
deil; but I should say the deil had not authorised him
to do so, as the “answer” is but poor, and has nothing
devilish in the ring of it.
As I am more of a heretic than “ blithe Lapraik ” was,
and, in consequence, presumably more of a personal
friend of the deil, I will take the liberty of replying to
Burns on the deil’s behalf. My reply is based upon an
anonymous and fugitive performance which fell into my
hands some years ago.
THE DEIL’S ADDRESS TO ROBERT BURNS.
Oh, wae’s me, Rab 1 hae ye gane gyte ?
What is’t that gar’s ye tak’ delight
To jeer at me, and ban, and flyte,
In Scottish rhyme,
And falsely gie me a’ the wyte
O’ ilka crime ?
�THE HARP OF HELL.
“Auld Hangie’s” no a bonnie name,
But just the warst word in your wame,
But I forgie ye a’ the same ;
I’ll let ye see
Quite plain what’s what, when ye come hame,
And live wi’ me.
An’, Rab, fu’ frankly let me tell,
Ilk ane o’ mettle like yoursel’
Had far, far better mop and mell
Wi’ rattlin’ chiels
Sic as ye’ll fin’ down deep in hell
Amang the deils
Than ye had lie in Abram’s lap,
Or hingin’ on by Sara’s pap,
Giein’ yer wings an extra flap,
A heevenly hen,
And leavin’ aff the milky drap
To scraich “ Amen/”
O’ auld nicknames ye hae a fouth,
O’ sharp, sarcastic rhymes a routh,
And as you’re bent to gie them scouth,
’Twere just as weel
For ye to tell the honest truth,
Just like the deil.
Rab, far mair lees are tauld in kirk
By every bletherin’, preachin’ stirk
Wi’ whinin’ theologic quirk
Than deils daur tell
Down in the blackest brumstane mirk
O’ lowest hell.
I dinna mean to note the whole
O’ your unfounded rigmarole ;
I’d rather haud my tongue, and thole
Your clishmaclavers,
Than try to plod through sic a scroll
O’ senseless havers.
O’ warlocks and o’ witches a’,
O’ spunkies, kelpies, great or sma’,
There isna’ ony truth ava’
In what you say ;
For siccan frichts I never saw,
Up to this day.
11
�12
THE HARP OF HELL.
The truth is, Rab, that wicked men,
When caught in crimes that are their ain,
To find a help, are unco’ fain
To share the shame ;
And so they shout, wi’ micht and main,
The deil’s to blame.
Thus I am blamed for Adam’s fa’ ;
You say that I maist ruined a’ ;
I’ll tell you ae thing, that’s no twa,
It’s just a lee ;
I fasht nae wi’ the pair ava’,
But loot them be.
I’d nae mair haun in that transgression,
Ye deem the source o’ a’ oppression,
And wae, and daith, and man’s damnation,
Than you yoursel’;
I filled a decent situation
When Adam fell.
I was a god o’ the first water,
An’ wad tae Heeven’s auldest daughter ;
But, by my sooth, the dad that gat her
Trod on my taes—
I took my sword an’ tae the slaughter,
Amang his faes.
For I could neither thole nor dree
Or god or deil to tramp on me ;
An’, Rab, in this I’m like to thee,
Fu’ croose and bauld,
Wha car’d na no a single flea
For Daddy Auld.
Nae doot I hae o’ sins enoo,
But lees, an’ neither sma’ nor few,
A tail like dragon, foot like coo,
Hae gien to me,
As, Rabbin, mony an evil mou’
Has spak’ o’ thee.
And, Rab, gin ye’ll just read your Bible
Instead o’ blin’ Jock Milton’s fable,
I’ll plank a croon on ony table
Against a groat,
Tae fin’ my name ye’ll no be able
In a’ the plot.
�THE HARP OF HELL.
Your mither, Eve, I kent her b rawly ;
A dainty quean she was, and wally,
But destitute o’ prudence haly,
The witeless hissie ;
Aye bent on fun, and whiles on folly
And mischief busy.
But, by my saul, she was a limmer
At ever kittled heart o’ kimmer ;
Nane were bonnier, some were primmer,
For, gif ye please,
She jinked about, through a’ the simmer,
Without chemise.
The loesome lassie wadna bin’,
Just whaur forbidden she wad rin,
A’ Natur’ sought her smile to win,
An’ deil may care,
Up tae her bonnie waist in sin,
She jumpit fair.
An’, Rantin Rab, I tell ye true
There’s much o’ mither Eve in you ;
So rein ye up, or ye sail rue,
I rede ye weel,
An’ tak’ a word o’ warnin’ noo,
Though frae the deil.
Eve had a leg like Bonnie Jean ;
She was a wily, winsome quean,
Wi’ rosy mou’ an’ pawky een,
Airms warm an’ saft,
She needit only to be seen
To drive ane daft.
Had Jah himsel’ been in that yaird
An’ tae that witchin’ lassie pair’d,
As sure as daith he’d kissed the swaird
E’en Jah himsel’;
E’en he wad no hae better fared
Whaur Adam fell.
An’, Rab, my birkie, gie’s yer haun’,
Now whether ye be deil or man,
If she says Na ye winna stan’
Her wiles ava,
But like a tree by wind up-blawn
Ye feckless fa’.
13
�14
THE HARP OE HELL.
As for that famous serpent story,
Tae lee’ I’d baith be shamed and sorry ;
It’s just a clever allegory,
An’ weel writ doon ;
The wark o’ an Egyptian Tory—
I ken’t the loon.
Your tale o’ Job, the man o’ Uz,
Wi’ reekit claes, and reested guiz,
My hornie hooves and brocket phiz,
Wi’ ither clatter,
Is maistly, after a’ the bizz,
A moonshine matter.
Auld Job, I ken’t the carl richt weel;
An honest, decent, kintra chiel,
Wi’ heid to plan and heart to feel
And haun tae gie—
He wadna wrang’d the verra deil,
A broon bawbee.
The man was gey and weel tae do,
Had horse, and kye, and ousen too,
And sheep, and stots. and stirks enoo,
Tae fill a byre ;
O’ meat and claes, a’ maistly new,
His heart’s desire.
Foreby, he had within his dwallins
Three winsome queans, and five braw callans,
Ye wadna, in the hale braid Lallans,
Hae fund theii' marrow,
Were ye to search frae auld Tantallans
Tae Braes o’ Yarrow.
It happened that three breekless bands
O’ caterans cam frae distant lands,
And took what fell amang their hands,
O’ sheep and duddies,
Just like your reivin’ Hielan’ clans,
Or Border bodies.
I tell thee, Rab, I had nae share
In a’ the tulzie, here or there ;
I lookit on, I do declare,
A mere spectator,
Nor said, nor acted, less or mair
About the matter.
�THE HARP OF HELL.
Job had a minstrel o’ his ain,
A genius rare, and somewhat vain
O’ rhyme and leir ; but then, again,
Just like yersel’,
O’ drink and lasses unco fain,
The ne’er-do-well.
So wi’ intention fully bent,
My doin’ to misrepresent,
That book o’ Job he did invent,
And then his rhymes
Got published in Arabic prent,
Tae suit the times.
You poets, Rab, are a’ the same,
O’ ilka kintra, age and name ;
Nae matter what may be your aim,
Or your intentions,
Maist o’ your characters o’ fame
Are pure inventions.
Your dogs are baith debaters, rare,
Wi’ sense galore and some to spare,
While e’en the verra brigs o’ Ayr
Ye gar them quarrel—
Tak’ Coila ben tae deck your hair
Wi’ Scottish laurel.
Haith ! Michael ne’er laid haun’s on me ;
Your tale, Jock Milton’s, a’ a lee,
Tak’ tent, puir crater though ye be,
Puir Roundhead loon,
Had ye had but had een to see,
I’d crack ye’re croon.
I like Rab’s deevil mair than Jock’s,
A hamely deil for hamely folks ;
He swirls his tail, his bonnet cocks,
An’ aff he goes
To sup among the preachers’ “ flocks,”
His Scottish brose.
Yet, Rabin, lad, for a’ your spite,
And taunts, and jeers, and wrangfu’ wyte,
I find, before you end your flyte,
And win your pirn
Ye’re nae sae cankered in the bite
As in the girn.
]5
�THE HARP OF HELL.
For when ye think he’s doomed to dwell
The lang for ever mair in hell,
Ye come and bid a kind farewell,
And guid be here,
E’en for the verra deil himsel’
Let fa’ a tear.
I own it, Rab I like it weel
To be auld Scotian’s ain auld deil,
An’ 1’11 stan’ by her staunch and leal,
Whate’er may be,
An’ ne’er a son o’ hers sail “ squeal ”
That comes to me.
An’ I hae brimstone for their yeuk,
An’ down in hell I’ll hae your buik,
An’ aqua vita in the neuk
In kegs galore,
An’ never parson, plague, or spook
Shall vex them more.
When e’er I hear the Scottish tongue
I’ll frae the barrel knock the bung,
Sing “ Scots Wha Hae ” wi’ lusty lung,
An’ by the urns
O’ a’ the great wha Scotian’ sung
The deil an’ Burns
Sall stan’ the rough burr thistle by,
An’ haud the drinking quaich on high
Wi’ heather wreathed frae Ayr or Skye,
Frae Clyde or Dee.—
“ Lo, Dogma perish, Priestcraft die ;
Scotian’ !—Tae thee ! ”
�
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 "Beauty of holiness, and The harp of hell, by Saladin
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ross, William Stewart [1844-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: The Harp of Hell is a poem by Ross in the style of Robert Burns. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
W. Stewart & 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
N575
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 (The "Beauty of holiness, and The harp of hell, by Saladin), 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
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
-
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