1
10
29
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9f6fab2c377f05ea4868a67f3353791d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sdqC%7EwsM9JOWvtfqIcTeE5pZjBwFFzMShdXEwZFYJ1d-AuW4wa4wCT66%7ELglZvcv75p7%7EODjwPMC%7EM4SsaVDNEnk7OnZRPIMYCSBr144QxactrGoth-0a%7Eg0bjZSeMLNncZr%7E47b25I9LZbwqedcEfG46o1JitSC6QJ59mZTTQsSs0S8FuustQTTZlT8V9x0uPGDwoZaozt7ulJUsFTpR2bPxT10Gn9NAPBnofG5GlbaXYb32ezLFB4wgp50wKRJ5580xvF8Gpj7Ug02XDSFoyVB5F293CbBPaV77YzUFlcVN3mY3spiZo2e5iLuKRfLQm6zLxiXmA3RuxVJJsz9Jw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
7da33cca055c715ed6100afc887c6f5d
PDF Text
Text
t“V
<*W"
72
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL
AND SOCIAL REFORMER ?
CHARLES WATTS'
( Vice-President 0/ the National Secular Society).
LONDON:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT,
FLEET STREET, E.C.
Price Fourpence.
��WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND
SOCIAL REFORMER?
' Although Thomas Carlyle has said that “ in these days it
is professed that hero-worship has gone out and finally
ceased,” thousands of the professed followers of Christ
idolise his memory to such an extent that they appear to
be entirely oblivious of any defect either in his character
or in his teachings. They regard their hero as having been
the very embodiment of truth, virtue, and perfection; and
those persons who are compelled to doubt the correctness
of these assumptions are regarded by orthodox believers
as most unreasonable and perverse members of society.
Probably the principal cause why such erroneous and
extravagant notions are entertained of one who, according
to the New Testament, was very little, if at all, superior to
other religious heroes can be accounted for by the fact that
the worshippers of Christ were taught in their childhood to
reverence him as an absolutely perfect character, and as
being beyond criticism. Thus youthful impressions
resulted in fancied creations which, in matured life, have
been accepted as realities. The Rev. James Cranbrook
recognised this truth, for in the preface to his work, The
Founders of Christianity (page 5), he observes : “ Our own
idealisations have invested him (Jesus) with a halo of
spiritual glory, that by the intensity of its brightness
conceals from us the real figure presented in the Gospels.
We see him, not as he is described, but as the ideally
perfect man our own fancies have conceived. But let any
one sit down and critically analyse the sayings and doings
ascribed to Jesus in the Gospels—let him divest his mind
of the superstitious fear of irreverence, and then ask him
self whether all those sayings and doings are in harmony
with the highest wisdom speaking for all ages and races of
�4
AVAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
mankind, and with the conceptions of an absolutely perfect
human nature, and I am mistaken if he will not find a very
great deal he will be forced to condemn.”
Even the sons of Labor, the apostles of Democracy, and
the advocates of Socialism appear disposed to adopt Jesus
as their Patron Saint. Conjectures are being constantly
made by professed modern reformers as to what the
Carpenter of Nazareth would say upon the many political
and social questions that agitate the public mind in this
the latter half of the nineteenth century. These hero
worshippers seem to overlook the apathy of Jesus in
respect to the evils of his own time. Of course, it is not
difficult for an impartial observer to learn why the name of
Christ is invoked to support the various schemes that are
now put forward to aid the regeneration of society.
However little Christianity is practised among us, it is
extensively professed, and it is thought by many a virtue
to assume a belief, whether there are sufficient grounds for
doing so or not. This slavish adherence to fashion is an
undignified prostration of mental freedom and independ
ence, and it is also a fruitful source of the perpetuation of
error. My purpose in examining the claims set up for
Jesus as a political and social reformer, is to ascertain
if the records of his life, doings, and teachings justify such
claims. If Jesus were judged as an ordinary man, living
nearly two thousand years ago, my present task would be
unnecessary. If we assume that such a man once lived, and
that what he said and did is accurately reported, he. should,
in my opinion, be considered as a youth possessing but
limited education, surrounded by unfavorable influences for
intellectual acquirements, belonging to a race not very
remarkable for literary culture, retaining many of the
failings of his progenitors, and having but little regard for
the world or the things of the world. Viewed under these
circumstances, I could, while excusing many of his errors,
recognise and admire something that is praiseworthy in the
life of “ Jesus of Nazareth.” But when he is raised upon a
pinnacle of greatness, as an exemplar of virtue and wisdom,
surpassing the production of any age or country, he is then
exalted to a position which he does not merit, and which,
to my mind, deprives him of that credit which otherwise he
would, perhaps, be entitled to.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
5
The contentions which it is my purpose to dispute are :
that Jesus was a political and social reformer, and that
his alleged teachings contain the remedies for the wrongs
of modern society. Before directly dealing with these
points it may be necessary to glance at the various aspects
of reform that have, at different times in our national
history, been presented to the community; also to briefly
consider the nature of the required reforms, and some of
the principal methods that have been adopted to secure
them.
In quite primitive ages important struggles took place
to establish greater equality in the conditions of life. In
the time of Moses, according to the Bible, the land, for
instance, was not merely the subject of “tracts for the
times,” but the laws and regulations relating to it were
practically dealt with. It did not, however, cease to be
property, and its inheritance was recognised as a rightful
thing. The stock-in-trade of many modern reformers is
the denunciation of those who “ add house to house, field to
field, and grind the faces of the poor.” If this condemnation
is one of the many features of Socialism, then Isaiah,
Jeremiah, and Ezekiel may, in this particular, be fairly
termed Socialists—a name foreign to their language and to
the ideas of their day.
The contention with some is, that Christ was a successor
to all these prophets, that he took the same kind of
objection as they did to the then existing state of things,
and that he used the same form of speech in denouncing
them. The general reply to this is, that Christ was, if
anything, only a prophetic reformer, not a real one. In
proof of this many facts in his alleged history may be
cited. For instance, he did not rescue the land from the
control of the Romans, who held it from the people very
much in the same way as landholders do now; he did not
attempt to render any aid to the laborers of Rome, who in
his day were resisting the injustice of the capitalists; he
did not deliver his brethren of “ the royal house ” from
their foreign rulers; he did not redeem the Jews from
their social evils, or restore justice to their nation. In a
word, he entirely failed to do the reforming work that was
expected of him. About the year 1825 the “Christian
Socialists of London ” called special attention to the question
�6
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
of land as regulated by Moses, and the living in common
by the early Christians; but no practical issue arose out of
the discussion. From that period down to the present
the same subject has been more or less agitated, and still
the matter is very far from being settled. Now, if it is
alleged that Christ sought to bring about a just settlement
of the land problem, then the existence of the present
oppressive land laws proves that he failed, and that his
most devout followers have been equally unfortunate.
If Christ had been a practical reformer, we should not have
in our midst the deplorable injustice, the wrongs, and the
inequalities that now afflict society. These evils and draw
backs—the growth of centuries during which Christianity
was in power—-will doubtless be lessened, if not altogether
destroyed; but the work will be achieved by a moral
revolution, inaugurated and conducted by men who will
possess ability and experience that it is evident Jesus never
had.
It must be borne in mind that there are two kinds of
revolution—one that is gradual and intellectual, and there
fore useful; the other that is sudden, born of passion, and
therefore often useless as an important factor in securing
permanent reforms. We know that every change of
thought, or condition of things, involves a revolution which,
if controlled by reason and regulated by the lessons of
experience, must aid rational progress, and tend to build up
a State, and secure its permanence. But there is another
kind of revolution, which is sought to be produced by
Nihilism and Anarchism, both of which aim at the
destruction of the State. I am not in favor of either of
these “isms,” believing, as I do, that in our present
condition of society some form of government is necessary.
Law and order, based upon the national will, and the
principle of justice, appear to me to be essential in any
scheme that is accepted for the purpose of furthering the
political and social progress of the world. Then we have
Socialism, which concerns itself with economic, ethical,
political, and industrial questions. The principal subject,
however, dealt with by Socialists is the accumulation
and distribution of wealth. State Socialism dates from
the time of the eminent French writer, Claude, H. Count
de St. Simon, whose works were published in 1831. He
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
tried to secure the amelioration of the condition of the
poor, and aimed at the organisation of labor and the
distribution of the fruits of industry, upon the principle of
every man being rewarded according to his works.
Socialism is, in fact, an attempt (whether it is the best that
could be made is with some persons a debateable point) to
regulate the social relations, making them more equal than
they are at present, either by individual combination, by
municipal or co-operative action, by a philanthropic policy
of the Church, or by the control of the State. This last
phase of the Socialistic scheme means the complete
regulation by law of the equality of individuals, the State
being the owner of the land, and of all the instruments of
industry that are at present possessed by individuals, public
companies, etc., who now regulate, in their own interest,
production and distribution.
Having thus briefly stated the general conceptions and
aims of political and social reformers, the next step is to
inquire in what relation Jesus stands to any or all of them.
Of course there is only one source of information upon the
subject at our command—that of the four Gospels. From
these it will not be difficult to demonstrate that Jesus was
no mundane reformer. Although he was surrounded by
poverty, slavery, oppression, and mental degradation, he
made no effort to rid society of these curses to humanity.
As John Stuart Mill observes, in his work upon
Liberty (pp. 28, 29), in referring to Christian morality:
“I do not scruple to say of it that it is, in many im
portant points, incomplete and one-sided, and that, unless
ideas and feelings, not sanctioned by it, had contributed
to the formation of European life and character, human
affairs would have been in a worse condition than they now
are.”
Professor Huxley, in the Nineteenth Century, No. 144,
pp. 178-186, points out that Christians have no right to
force their idealistic portraits of Jesus on the unbiassed
scientific world, whose business it is to study realities and
to separate fiction from fact. The Professor’s words are :
“ In the course of other inquiries, I have had to do with
fossil remains, which looked quite plain at a distance, and
became more and more indistinct as I tried to define their
outline by close inspection. There was something there—
�8
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
something which, if I could win assurance about it, might
mark a new epoch in the history of the earth; but, study as
long as I might, certainty eluded my grasp. So has it
been with me in my efforts to define the grand figure of
Jesus as it lies in the primitive strata of Christian litera
ture. Is he the kindly, peaceful Christ depicted in the
catacombs 1 Or is he the stern judge who frowns above
the altar of Saints Cosmas and Damianus ? Or can he be
rightly represented in the bleeding ascetic broken down by
physical pain of too many mediaeval pictures ? Are we to
accept the Jesus of the second or the Jesus of the fourth
Gospel as the true Jesus ? What did he really say and do ?
and how much that is attributed to him in speech and
action is the embroidery of the various parties into which
his followers tended to split themselves within twenty
years of his death, when even the three-fold tradition was
only nascent ? .... If a man can find a friend, the
hypostasis of all his hopes, the mirror of his ethical ideal, in
the Jesus of any or all of the Gospels, let him live by faith
in that ideal. Who shall, or can, forbid him ? But let
him not delude himself that his faith is evidence of the
objective reality of that in which he trusts. Such evidence
is to be obtained only by the use of the methods of science
as applied to history and to literature, and it amounts, at
present, to very little.”
Equally emphatic are the remarks of John Vickers, the
author of The New Koran, etc., who, in his work, The Real
Jesus, on pp. 160, 161, writes: “Many popular preachers
at the present day are accustomed to hold Jesus up to
admiration as the special friend of the poor-—that is, as
the benefactor of the humble working class, and their
representations to this effect are doubtless very generally
believed. But a greater delusion respecting him than this
can scarcely be imagined ; for, however much he may have
been disposed to favor those who forsook their industrial
calling and led a vagrant life, his preaching and the course
which he took were prejudicial to all who honestly earned
their bread. He did nothing with his superior wisdom to
develop the resources of the country and provide employ
ment for the poor; all his efforts were directed to the
unhinging of industry, the diminution of wealth, and the
promotion of universal idleness and beggary. It was no
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
9
part of his endeavor to see the peasant and the artisan
better remunerated and more comfortably housed, for he
despised domestic comforts as much as Diogenes, and
believed that their enjoyment would disqualify people for
obtaining the everlasting pleasures of Paradise. A
provident working man who had managed to save enough
for a few months’ subsistence he would have classed with
the covetous rich, and required him to give away in alms
all that he had treasured as the indispensable condition
of discipleship. On one occasion he is said to have
distributed food liberally to the hungry multitude; but
the food was none of his providing, since he was him
self dependent on alms. Moreover, the recipients of his
bounty were not a band of ill-fed laborers returning from
work/not a number of distressed farmers who had suffered
heavy losses from murrain or drought, but a loafing crowd
who had followed him about from place to place, and
spent the day in idleness. Such bestowment of largess
would only tend to produce a further relaxation of
industrial effort; it would induce credulous peasants, to
throw down their tools and follow the wonder-working
prophet for the chance of a meal; they would see little
wisdom in plodding at their tasks from day to day, like
the ants and the bees, if people were to be fed by
wandering about trustfully for what should turn up, as the
idle, improvident ravens (Prov. vi. 6 ; Luke xii. 24).”
Many eminent Christian writers maintain that Jesus was
a social reformer, because he is represented as having, been
in favor of dispensing with the private ownership of
property, and also of people living together, enjoying what
is called “ a common repast.” Professor Graetz, in the
second volume of his able History of the Jews, devotes a
chapter to the social practices which prevailed at the time
when Jesus is alleged to have lived. On page 117 he
states that Christianity was really an offshoot from the
principles held by the Essenes, and that Christ inherited
their aversion to Pharisaical laws, while he approved of
their practice of putting their all into the common treasury.
Further, like them, Jesus highly esteemed self-imposed
poverty, and despised riches. In fact, we are told that
the “ community of goods, which was a peculiar doctrine
of the Essenes, was not only approved, but enforced.............
�10
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
The repasts they shared in common formed, as it were, the
connecting link which attached the followers of Jesus to
one another; and the alms distributed by the rich publicans
relieved the poor disciples of the fear of hunger; and this
bound them still more strongly to Jesus.” But Graetz
also adds that Christ thoroughly shared the narrow views
held by the Judaeans of his time, and that he despised the
heathen world. Thus he said : “ Give not that which is
holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before
swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you ” (Matt. vii. 6). If this is “ Christian
Socialism,” it is far from being catholic in its nature. The
Socialistic element of having “all things in common ” was
limited by Christ to one particular community ; it lacked
that universality necessary to all real social reforms. It
was similar to his idea of the brotherhood of man. Those
only were his brothers who believed in him. He desired
no fellowship with those who did not accept his faith;
hence he exclaimed : “ If a man abide not in me, he is cast
forth as a branch, and is withered, and men gather them,
and cast them into the fire, and they are burned ” (John xv.
6); “I pray not for the world, but for them which thou
hast given me ” (John xvii. 9); “But he that denieth me
before men shall be denied before the angels of God ”
(Luke xii. 9); “ He that believeth not shall be damned ”
(Mark xvi. 16). This may be the teaching of theology, but
it is not indicative of a broad humanity, neither would it,
if acted upon, tend to promote the social welfare of mankind.
. Professor Graham, M.A., of Belfast College, contends, in
his work, Socialism: Olcl and New, that Christ taught
“ Communism ” when he preached “ Blessed be ye poor,”
when “ he repeatedly denounced ” the rich, and when he
recommended the wealthy young man to voluntarily
surrender his property to the poor. The Professor also
says: “ In spite of certain passages to the contrary,
pointing in a different direction, the Gospels are pervaded
with the spirit of Socialism ”; but he adds : “ It is not quite
State Socialism, because the better society was to be
brought about by the voluntary union of believers.” He
admits, however, that “ the ideal has hitherto been found
impossible; but let not any say that it does not exist in
the Gospels—that Christ did not contemplate an earthly
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
11
society.” Now this last point is just what could be fairly
urged, if the Gospels were trustworthy. There can be no
reasonable doubt that the disregard of mundane duties
would be the logical sequence of acting up to many of the
teachings ascribed to Jesus. For instance, he said, “My
kingdom is not of this world ” (John xviii. 36). “He that
loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in
this world shall keep it unto life eternal” (John xii. 25).
“ I am not of the world ” (John xvii. 9). “ Take no. thought
for your life, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink; nor
yet for your body what ye shall put on. . . . Take there
fore no thought for the morrow, for the morrow shall take
thought for the things of itself ” (Matthew vi. 25, 34). “ If
any man comes to me and hate not his father, and mother,
and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and
his own life, he cannot be my disciple ” (Luke xiv. 26).
“Everyone that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or
sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands,
for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundred fold, and shall
inherit everlasting life” (Matthew xix. 29). Even the
disciple who wished to bury his father was advised by
Christ to forego that duty of affection, for “Jesus said,
Follow me ; let the dead bury the dead.”
The fact is, Christ was a spiritualiser, and not a social
reformer. If he had been to his age what Bacon and
Newton were to theirs, and what Darwin, Spencer, Huxley,
and Tyndall have been to the present generation ; if he had
written a book teaching men how to avoid the miseries of
life; if he had revealed the mysteries of nature, and
exhibited the beauties of the arts and sciences, what an
advantage he would have conferred upon mankind, and
what an important contribution he would have given to
the world towards solving the problems of our present
social wrongs and inequalities. But the usefulness of Jesus
was impaired by the idea which he entertained, that this
world was but a state of probation, wherein the human
family were to be prepared for another and a better home,
where “ the wicked cease from troubling and the weary
are at rest.”
We have thus seen the views of the scientist, the
historian, and the professor, upon the subject under con
sideration ; it will now be interesting to learn what one
�12
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
of the successors to the apostles has to say in reference
to the same question. B. F. Westcott, D.D., the present
Bishop of Durham, in his work, Social Aspects of Christianity,
says : “Of all places in the world, the Abbey, I think,
proclaims the social gospel of Christ with the most touch
ing eloquence. ... If I am a Christian, I must bring
within the range of my religion every interest and difficulty of man, ‘ for other foundation can no man lay than
that is laid, which is Jesus Christ.’ ”
This is not by any means correct, for many other
“foundations,” which have nothing to do with Christ,
have been laid, and upon them systems, some good and
some bad, have been built. For instance, there are
Individualism, Socialism, material standards of progress,
unlimited competition, and the application of science.
These are “ other foundations ” that men have had apart
altogether from Christ. But the solution to present social
evils, Dr. Westcott considers, is to be found only in the
Christian faith. He says : “ We need to show the world
the reality of spiritual power. We need to gain and
exhibit the idea that satisfies the thoughts, the aspirations,
the aims of men straining towards the light.” He admits
that science has increased our power and resources; but, he
adds, it “ cannot open the heavens and show the glory of
God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God.” Of
course it cannot; for science has nothing to do with
the impossible, or with the wild speculations of theology.
In the Social Aspects of Christianity, as presented by the
Bishop, it would be difficult, indeed, to recognise the
principles of true Socialism. Moreover, as it is admitted
by him that science has increased our “power and
resources,” it is a proof that Jesus must have been a poor
reformer, when we remember that he did nothing what
ever to aid this strong element of modern progress.
From the references which I have here made to some of
the ablest writers of to-day, it will be seen how Jesus is
estimated by them. I now propose to analyse the various
statements which, according to the Four Gospels, were
uttered by him, that have any bearing upon the political
and social questions of our time. It will then be seen
whether Christ has any claim to be considered a political
and social reformer.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
13
That the political views held by Jesus were exceed
ingly crude is evident from the circumstance recorded in
Matthew xxii. It is there stated that, on finding a coin of
the realm bearing the superscription of Caesar, Jesus
declared that both Caesar and God were to have their due.
The very pertinent question put by the disciples afforded
a good opportunity for some sound advice to be given upon
the political subjection in which the people to whom Christ
was talking were living. They were in bondage to a
foreign power, and were anxious to know if it were
“lawful to give tribute to Caesar or not.” Instead of
returning a clear and intelligible answer, Jesus replied in
words which were evasive and meaningless, so far as the
information sought for was concerned. If he had any
desire to alter the then existing political, relations, or. to
suggest any improvement, he might have given a practical
lesson upon the duties and obligations of the ruled to the
rulers. Another opportunity was lost when, Pilate having
asked Christ an important question, “ Jesus gave him no
answer” (John xix. 9).
Subsequently, however, Jesus recognised the “divine
government,” for he said : “ Thou couldst have no power
at all against me, except it were given thee from above.”
(John xix. 11). He also, having stated, “My kingdom is
not of this world,” added : “ If my kingdom were of this
world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be
delivered to the Jews.” Christ s notions of government
were similar to those of St. Paul, who said: “The
powers that be are ordained of God. . .. . and they that
resist shall receive to themselves damnation (Romans xiii.
1, 2).
Now, in the very face of these scriptural utterances, we
have men to-day who allege that Christ is their hero of
democracy. The belief that he ever intended to. improve
the government of this world by secular means is utterly
groundless. His negligence in this particular cannot be
explained away by saying that society was not ripe for
reform, and that Jesus lacked the power to revolutionise
the institutions of his time. There is truth, no doubt, in
the latter allegation, for the power of Christ for all practical
work seems to have been very limited indeed. He did not
attempt any political reform, as other men in all ages have-
�14
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
done; he did not make honest endeavors to inaugurate
improvements which, under happier circumstances, might
have been carried out. There is no evidence that Christ
ever concerned himself with such reforms as civil and
religious liberty, the freedom of the slaves, the equality
of human rights, the emancipation of women, the spread of
science and of education, the proper use of the land, and the
fostering of the fundamental elements of human progress.
His language was : “ Behold the fowls of the air : for they
sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns ; yet
your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much
better than they ? And why take ye thought for raiment ?
Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil
not, neither do they spin. And yet I say unto you, That
even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of
these. Wherefore, if God so clothes the grass of the field,
which to-day is, and to-morrow is cast into the oven, shall
he not much more clothe you, 0 ye of little faith ? But
seek ye first the kingdom of God and his righteousness,
and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Christ’s declaration that his kingdom was not of this
world may be taken as a reason why he made no adequate
provision for secular government; but those who worship
him assert that his plan is the only one that can be success
fully adopted to secure the desired reforms, and that he
really did contemplate a better state of society on earth
than the one that then obtained. Where is the evidence
that this was so 1 Not in the New Testament, for it is
nowhere recorded therein that such was his mission. With
him the question was : “ For what shall it profit a man if
he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul ?” Even
Renan, who is so frequently quoted by Christian advocates
as extolling Jesus, admits that he lacked the qualities of a
great political and social reformer. In his Life of Jesus
Renan says that Christ had “ no knowledge of the general
condition of the world ” (p. 78); he was unacquainted with
science, “ believed in the devil, and that diseases were the
work of demons” (pp. 79, 80); he was “harsh” towards
s family, and was “no philosopher” (pp. 81-83); he
“went to excess” (p. 174); he “aimed less at logical
conviction than at enthusiasm”; “sometimes his intolerance
of all opposition led him to acts inexplicable and apparently
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
15
absurd” (pp. 274, 275); and “bitterness and reproach
became more and more manifest in his heart” (p. 278.)
But let us further consider what it is said that he taught
in reference to life’s social requirements, and also what was
his estimate of the world and the things of the world.
Under any system conducted upon rational principles the
first social requirement is to provide for sufficient food,
clothes, and shelter; for to talk of comfort and progress
without these requisites is absurd. Now, it was about
these very things that Jesus, as it has already been shown,
taught that we should take no thought. In Matthew (c. vi.)
special reference is made to the Gentiles who did take
thought as to the necessities of life ; but other people were
not to be anxious upon the subject, “ for your Heavenly
Father knoweth that ye have need of all these things,” and
a promise is given that he will provide them as he
“ feedeth ” “ the fowls of the air.” Poverty and idleness
were essentials to Christ’s idea of a social state, as is proved
by his advice to the rich young man, to whom he said:
“ If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor” (Matthew xix. 21). In John (vi. 27) it
is also said : “ Labor not for the meat which perisheth.”
What wealthy Christian will sell what he has and give to
the poor, and thus carry out Christ’s idea of social duties ?
And if the toiling millions did not labor for their meat,
they would get but little of it. It is not overlooked
that Jesus said to the young man, “and follow me”;
which meant, I presume, that he was to join the Chris
tian society in which they had “all things common”
(Acts iv.). But this state of existence could only be
maintained by giving up all one’s possessions and adding
them to the general stock. If all did this, the stock would
be soon exhausted. And the point here to be noted is, that
in Christ’s scheme no provision is made to provide for a
permanent mode of living, except by prayer or miracle.
Surely it must be obvious to most people that a
communion of saints, fed directly by God, could not be any
solution of the social problem for those outside such
communities Besides, there is little prospect of outsiders
being made partakers with the saints, unless God the
Father draws them unto Christ (John vi. 44); but no one
can go to the Father except by Christ (John xiv. 6).
�16
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Thus our chances of admission into the Christian fold are
very remote, for if we are admitted it must be through
Christ, to whom we cannot go unless the Father draws us ;
but then we cannot go to the Father except by Christ.
This is a theological puzzle, which must be left for a
“ Christian Socialist ” to unravel if he can.
The belief that a social condition of society is sustained
by an invisible power, where no labor is performed, and
where no interest is taken in its progress, or in the dignity
and personal independence of its members, is the height of
folly. It implies the destruction of all human institutions,
and the substitution of a “divinely-ordered state of
things,” such as some of Christ’s followers allege they are
now hourly expecting. Well might the late Bishop of
Peterborough say : “ It is not possible for the State to
carry out all the precepts of Christ. A State that
attempted to do so could not exist for a week. If there be
any person who maintains the contrary, his proper place is
in a lunatic asylum ” (Fortnightly, January, 1890).
The Sermon on the Mount, or “in the plain,” as
stated by Luke (vi. 17), has been called the. Magna Charta
of the kingdom of God, proclaimed by Christ, although it
has never been made the basis of any human government.
Its injunctions are so impracticable and antagonistic to. the
requirements of modern civilisation that no serious
attempt has ever been made to put them in practice.
It may be mentioned that the genuineness of the “ Sermon ”
has been boldly questioned. Professor Huxley writes:
“I am of opinion that there is the gravest reason for
doubting whether the Sermon on the Mount was ever
preached, and whether the so-called Lord’s Prayer was
ever prayed by Jesus of Nazareth” (Controverted Questions,
p. 415). The Professor then gives his reasons for arriving
at this conclusion.
The Rev. Dr. Giles, in his Christian Records, speaking of
the Sermon on the Mount, says : “ There is good ground
for believing that such a collective body of maxims was
never, at any time, delivered from the lips of our.Lord’;
and Milman declares that scarcely any passage is more
perplexing to the harmonist of the Gospels than this
sermon, which, according to Matthew and Luke, appears to
have been delivered at two different places.
�*S-'
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
17
Mr. Charles B. Cooper, a very able American writer,
aptly observes: “If this discourse is so important, as
Christians profess to believe—the sum of all the teachings
of Jesus, and the sufficient source of all morality—it is
curious that Mark and John knew nothing about it, and
that Luke should dismiss it with such a short report.
Luke, omitting the larger part of the matter, takes only
one page to tell what occupies three pages in Matthew;
and to find any parallel to much of Matthew we have to go
to other chapters of Luke and to other occasions. In
addition to which, they disagree as to whether it was given
on a mountain or in a plain.”
Taking a broad view of the teachings as ascribed to
Christ, I should describe most of them as being the result
of emotion rather than the outcome of matured reflection.
They are based upon faith, not upon knowledge, trust in
Providence being the cornerstone of his system, so far as
his fragmentary utterances can be systematised. In my
opinion, the idea of his being a political and social reformer
rests upon an entirely mistaken view of the union of what
are termed temporal and spiritual things. Examples of this
maybe seen in such injunctions as “Love one another ”
and “Love your neighbor as yourself.” The first was
clearly applicable to the followers of Christ, for he
expressly states, “ By this shall all men know that ye are
my disciples” (John xiii. 35); and the second command
applied only to the Jewish community, not to strangers
who lived outside. These injunctions did not mean that
those who heard them were to love all mankind. Christ
himself divided those who were for him from those who
were against him. To the first he said, “ Come, ye blessed
of my father ”; to the other, “ Depart from me, ye cursed,
into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
It has always appeared to me to be remarkably strange
that Christ should be regarded as the exemplar of universal
love. Neither his own words, nor the conduct of his
followers, justify such a belief. It is, of course, desirable
that a social state of society should be based upon love and
the universal brotherhood of man. This is the avowed
foundation of the religion of the Positivists, their motto
being, “Love our basis, order our method, and progress
our end”; but no such commendable features are to be
B
�18
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER
1
found in the Gospel of Christ, or in the history of the
Church. Jesus declared that his mission was only to “the
lost sheep of the house of Israel” (Matthew xv. 24).
Moreover, the conditions of discipleship which he imposed
would, if complied with, exclude the possibility of love
among all men (Luke xiv. 26); as would also his avowed
object of breaking the peace and harmony of the domestic
circle (Matthew x. 34, 35). It may be said that such are
the contingencies attending the belief and adoption of a
new religion. Be it so; but that only shows the futility
of the contention that Christ established universal brother
hood. It is absurd to argue that he did so, when we are
told in the Gospels that his mission was to the Jews only
(Matthew xv. 24); that he would have no fellowship with
unbelievers (Matthew xv. 26); that he threatened to have
his revenge upon those who denied him (Matthew x. 33);
that he instructed his disciples to “go not into the way of
the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye
not” (Matthew x. 5); and, finally, that he commanded
those disciples, when they were about to start on a
preaching expedition, that “Whosoever shall not receive
you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that
house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I
say unto you, it shall be more tolerable for the land of
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment than for
that city” (Matthew x. 14, 15). Shaking the dust from
the feet, be it remembered, was an Oriental custom of
exhibiting hatred towards those against whom the act was
performed. And surely the punishment that it is said was
to follow the refusal of the disciples’ administration was
the very opposite of the manifestation of love. This
accords with the non-loving announcement that “ the Lord
Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty
angels, in flaming fire, taking vengeance on them that
know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord
Jesus Christ: who shall be punished with everlasting
destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the
glory of his power” (2 Thess. i. 7, 8, 9).
These references ought to be sufficient to convince any
one that Jesus cannot be reasonably credited with a
feeling of unqualified love for the whole of the human
race. His conduct, and the general spirit of his teachings
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
19
towards those who differed from him, forbid such a
supposition. His injunctions, if acted upon, would annul
the influence of the ancient maxim of “ doing unto others
as you would they should do to you.” Certainly he failed
to set a personal example by complying with this rule, as
his harsh language to those who did not accept his
authority amply proves. It is reported that Jesus said
(Matthew v. 22), “ Whosoever shall say Thou fool shall be
in danger of hell fire”; yet we find him exclaiming, “Ye
fools, ye fools and blind” (Lukexi. 40; Matthewxxiii. 17).
He advised others to “Love your enemies, bless them that
curse you,” while he himself addressed those who were not
his friends as “hypocrites ” (Matthew vii. 5); “ye serpents,
ye generation of vipers ” (Matthew xxiii. 33). We may
here apply Christ’s own words to himself: “I say unto
you that every idle word that men shall speak, they shall
give account thereof in the day of judgment. For by thy
words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt
be condemned ” (Matthew xii. 36, 37). In Luke (vi. 37)
he counsels us to “forgive, and ye shall be forgiven ”; but
in Mark (iii. 29) it is stated, “He that shall blaspheme
against the Holy G-host hath never forgiveness, but is in
danger of eternal damnation.” The unfortunate point here
is, that we are not told what constitutes blasphemy against
the Holy Ghost.
From these cases, and there are many more in the
Gospels of like nature, it is clear that Jesus taught one
thing and practised another—a course of conduct which
his followers have not been slow to emulate. But such an
inconsistent trait of character disqualifies those in whom it
is found from being the best of social reformers. Example
is higher than precept.
Whatever may be urged in favor of Christ’s supposed
“ spiritual kingdom,” his teachings have but little value in
regulating the political and social affairs of daily life, using
those terms in the modern and legitimate sense, inasmuch
as he has given the world no practical information upon
either the science of politics or of sociology. The affairs of
this world had but little interest with Christ. With him
pre-eminence was given to the soul over the body. We are
not to fear him who can kill the body only, but rather fear
him “ who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell ”
�20
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
(Matthew x. 28). Here we recognise the great defect in
Jesus as a societarian reformer. He treats this world as if
it were of secondary importance, and he furnishes no useful
rules for its practical government. True he says, “ Blessed
are ye poor,” and “Woe unto you that are rich but what
does this amount to ? These empty exclamations will not
abolish pauperism, neither will they produce the organisation
of honest industry, whereby human wants can be supplied
and social comforts secured. Would it not have been
better if Jesus had devised some plan whereby poverty
should become extinct ?
To talk, as Professor Graham does, about producing a
better state of society by a “ union of believers ” is, in my
opinion, folly. How is it to be done ? Every member of
“ the union ” would have to live on the alms of the wealthy
members. It would, in fact, be a society of the destitute
supported by voluntary contributions. Surely no sane
Socialists ever proposed to divide mankind into two
classes—z.e., paupers and those who feed them. We know
what the result of such a policy was in the case of the
Church. As the Professor says, the Church obtained the
funds of the rich in return for certain considerations which
were supposed to affect them in this world and in the next;
and out of such proceeds the clergy distributed bread to
the poor and kept something better for themselves. Thus
Europe for centuries was infested by fat, idle monks . and
an army of miserable beggars. A more detestable condition
of society to men of honor and independent spirit never
existed. Yet this “ Christian plan ” finds favor, as we have
seen, in “ the Abbey,” and is really the necessary outcome of
Christ’s mendicant teachings. For did he not allege that
the poor were blessed, and that “ ye hath the poor always
with you” (Matthew xxvi. 11)? If he contemplated that
the period would arrive when “it should be impossible for
men to be poor,” why did he not give some practical
instructions to hasten its advent ? This would have been
a o-rand contribution to social reform. But his overwhelm
ing anxiety about another life was, with him, the “one
thing needful,” and to it every other consideration had to
give way.
.
I am quite unable to understand how anyone can mistake
the obvious meaning of the parable in which the rich man
u-*** yMita
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
21
appears in hell and the poor man in heaven (Luke
xvi. 19-26). The only assigned reason is that the one was
well-to-do in this life, while the other suffered privations.
This is no justification for either of the men being where
they are represented to have been. For poverty is no
virtue, neither is it a crime to be rich. Men of wealth can
be worthy characters, and poverty may be allied with
much rascality. The wrong does not consist in possessing
riches, but rather in the misuse of them; and, therefore, to
be poor does not seem the highest qualification for future
bliss, and to be rich is not a sufficient cause for anyone
being excluded from an abode of happiness. But this
parable is another illustration of Christ’s exaltation of
poverty. He even dispatched his disciples on a mission of
propaganda, without scrip, money, or purse, to beg their
way through the world (Luke x. 7-10). Is this the highest
model that can be given for a mission to the poor ? It is
thought so little of to-day, even by professed Christians,
that they never adopt the plan suggested by their
“ Master.” They may preach “ Blessed be ye poor,” but
they have no desire to be one of them. They read the
warning, “Woe unto you that are rich; for ye have
received your consolation ” (Luke vi. 24); but they appear
to be exceedingly comfortable with their material consola
tion. “ A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush,” and
they are consoled more with the riches of this world than
with the chance of having a harp in the next. In the case
of the rich young man (Luke xviii.) it is true Christ
advised the giving up of private property; but it is also
true that the advice was not deemed practical, for the
young man “went away sorrowful” (Matthew xix. 22).
Supposing he had accepted the advice, he would then
have swelled the ranks of the poor unemployed, and
thereby have become the recipient rather than the bene
factor, although it is recorded that “it is more blessed to
give than to receive” (Acts xx. 35). The giving up all
one’s possessions would be as injurious to a community as
the amassing of wealth by the few is pernicious.
What is required is a social arrangement whereby all
members of the community shall have their fair share of
the necessities and comforts of life ; and this arrangement
Christ did not understand, or, if he did, he made no effort
�99!
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
to bring it into force, and consequently he lacked the
elements of a true social reformer.
There is an incident recorded in Luke (xii.) which shows
that Christ refused to say anything upon the subjects of
property, civil rights, and law and government. “ One of
the company said unto him, Master, speak to my brother,
that he divide the inheritance with me. And he said unto
him, Man, who made me a judge or a divider over you ?”
Here Jesus had an opportunity, as a social reformer, to
give the world an important lesson upon the duty of one
man to another; but he did not avail himself of it. He
acted more like a modern lawyer would do, who, when
asked by a stranger to give him advice, would reply: “I
am not your appointed solicitor ; if you want information,
you must consult your own legal adviser.”
The parable of “ the rich man who set up greater barns,”
related in Luke (xii.), is another illustration of Christ’s
defective teachings in reference to the affairs of this life.
The man in the parable proposed to enlarge his premises so
that he might be able to put by increased stock of fruits
and goods, and thus be in a position to take his “ ease, eat,
drink, and be merry.” There does not appear to be any
great crime in this, for he lacked room wherein to bestow
his fruits, etc. (v. 17). Surely there could be no serious
objection to making such careful provision for “a rainy
day.” Such conduct is frequently necessary to the advance
ment of personal comfort and general civilisation. Have
not Christians in all ages, since their advent, done the
same thing, when they have had the opportunity ? Layingup treasures on earth, although forbidden by Christ, is
often an effective precaution against starvation, and against
being in old age the slave of charity. But for doing this
very thing the man was told : “ Thou fool, this night thy
soul shall be required of thee ; then whose shall those
things be which thou hast provided ?” (v. 20). Jesus then
said, “ Therefore I say unto you, take no thought for your
life, what ye shall eat,” etc. Here we have the prominent
Christian requirement of making the duties of this world
subservient to the demands of a future existence put forth
by one who is claimed as being a model social reformer.
If it is alleged that Christ meant that the man in the parable
should have distributed his fruits and goods rather than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER?
23
store them up, the reply is, the account does not say so.
Why did not Christ, instead of making heaven the principal
consideration, point out the evil influence of the monopoly
of wealth upon human society ? The social problems cannot
be solved by indulging in speculations as to another world,
of which we have had no experience. The principle sought
to be enforced in this parable is evidently that the soul is
of more importance than the body, and that heaven is of
greater value than earth. Thoughtlessness of the things of
time is directly encouraged by reference to the ravens :
“ For they neither sow nor reap; which neither have store
house nor barn; and God feedeth them ” (v. 24).
It is worthy of note that Jesus never once intimated
throughout his career, either by direct statement or
illustration, that this world was the noblest and most
desirable dwelling place for man, and that it was the home
of social felicity and mutual happiness. His heart and
home were in his Father’s house, whither he went to
prepare a place for his followers, to whom he gave a
promise that he would come and receive them unto
himself (John xiv. 2, 3). So little did Christ understand
the philosophy of secular reform that when he condemned
covetousness (which was very laudable upon his part) it
was because he thought it interfered with the preparation
for inhabiting “mansions in the skies,” rather than in
consequence of its effects upon homes on earth. He
entirely overlooked the agencies that promote human
comfort. The means that have been employed to produce
and to advance civilisation received from him no matured
consideration. If every word attributed to him had been
left unuttered, not one feature of modern progress would be
missing to-day. Let anyone carefully read, with an
unbiassed mind, the four Gospels, and then ask himself the
questions : What philosophic truth did Jesus propound ?
What scientific fact did he explain ? What social problem
did he solve ? What political scheme did he unfold 1 The
New Testament does not inform us. On the contrary,
while other men, with less pretensions than himself, were
active in giving the world their thoughts upon these great
questions, Jesus remained silent in reference to them. It
is no answer to say that to deal with the subjects was not
his mission. For, if he came simply to talk about another
�24
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
world, at the sacrifice of the requirements of this, then my
contention is made good that, whatever else he was, he
certainly was no political and social reformer.
It appears to me that the gospel of Christ is a very poor
one for any practical purposes, inasmuch as it never deals
with the material comforts of human beings. It does not
suggest any means by which the poor could obtain that
power by which they could secure the amelioration of their
sad condition. It is not here overlooked that Christ is
credited with saying that those who sought the “Kingdom
of God ” should have food, drink, etc., added unto them
(Luke xii.). But, unfortunately, experience teaches that
such a promise cannot be relied upon, for it is too well
known that many of those persons who occupied much of
their time in seeking the kingdom of God remained
destitute of the necessaries of life. It was during the
prevalence of this superstitious belief, and of an un
reasonable reliance upon Christ, that personal misery and
intellectual sterility prevailed throughout the land. For
many generations the indiscriminate followers of Jesus
failed to give the world any new thought, or to establish
any new political or social institution; and from the
Church nothing of practical secular value emanated during
the fifteen centuries of its uninterrupted reign. This,
however, is not all that can be fairly urged upon this
point. The followers of Christ not only failed to originate
any social scheme for the good of general society them
selves, but they did their utmost to crush those who did.
It appears almost incredible that such persistent efforts
were ever made to extinguish every new thought as those
recorded of Christians, when they had the power to do as
they pleased. New books were despised and destroyed,
and new inventions were said to be the work of the Devil.
True happiness cannot co-exist with physical slavery and
mental serfdom, and yet, it must be repeated, Jesus did
nothing to remove these evils. His apathy towards the
institution of slavery is the more strange if we accept the
authority of Gratz, that Christ was connected with the
Essenes, and that, to some extent, he founded his system
upon theirs. By that community slavery, we are told,
was prohibited ; yet we read that both bond and free were
one in Christ Jesus. Is not this striking evidence that
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
25
Jesus had no intention to seek the removal of this inhuman
blot from the history of our race 1
Those persons to-day who desire to establish a relation
ship between Socialism and Christianity dwell with much
persistency upon Christ’s views as to the division of
property. But let us see what are the facts of the case.
Jesus told those who were willing to leave their homes,
families, and lands for his “ sake and the Gospels ”
(Mark x.), that they should receive “an hundredfold” of
each in this world, besides “ eternal life in the world to
come.” Now, this is ridiculous in the extreme ; for what
possible advantage could it be to any one to have his or
her relatives multiplied a hundredfold ? Besides, where
could Christ get either a hundred mothers to replace
every one that had been forsaken, or a hundred acres of
land to compensate for each one that had been given up ?
And even supposing he could do this, what becomes of the
theory of despising landed possessions ? Moreover, if the
smaller number and quantity were a drawback, the larger
must be more so. Further, there is but little self-denial
involved in parting with ten acres of land to secure a
thousand. It is really surprising that the Jews did not
“ catch on ” in this matter. Probably they saw that it
was all a sham, because Christ had no means of keeping
his promise. Where were the houses, land, etc., to come
from ? Evidently Christ had none, for he appears to have
been entirely destitute of all worldly goods, having “ not
where to lay his head” (Matthew viii. 20). Would not
such an augmentation of property be antagonistic to the
principle Jesus taught on another occasion, when he said
“ lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth ”
(Matthew vi.) ? No marvel that his friends thought he
was “beside himself” (Mark iii. 21), or that the Jews
considered “he hath a devil, and is mad” (John x. 20),
and that “ neither did his brethren believe in him ”
(John vii. 5). If any man at the present time dealt with
the question of property in the same way as Christ is here
represented to have done, he would not be regarded as a
social reformer, but rather as a man whose intellect was
far from being brilliant, and whose ideas were exceedingly
confused. Christ’s reply to the high priest, who asked
him the question, “ Art thou the Christ, the Son of the
�26
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Blessed?” (Mark xiv. 61), is, to my mind, clear evidence
that he was neither the political nor the social Messiah
that some persons allege him to have been. His reply
was, “ 1 am; and he shall see the son of man sitting on the
right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.”
Does not this accord with his statement, “ I am not of the
world,” and “ my kingdom is not of this world ” 1 Should
not this settle at once, as a fact, that the mission of Jesus
was not to be the founder of an earthly government, or
the promoter of a mundane social system ?
As to the idea that Christ will come, as he said, “in the
clouds,” that relates to the future, and has no bearing upon
the present inquiry, the results of which will not be affected
by either the fulfilment or the failure of that prediction.
The question is not what will be, but rather what Christ
did to entitle him to be classified as a secular reformer.
Professor Graham, as we have seen, admits that Christ did
not inaugurate State Socialism, but that he only proposed
a sort of friendly society among Christians themselves. In
doing even this, however, he showed himself sadly defective
in the knowledge necessary to a real reformer. There exists
to-day in this country an old-established Christian sect,
termed Quakers, who keep a common treasury for the
purpose of aiding those of their numbers who are in need.
But, be it observed, they fill their treasury by industry and
the result of laboring “ for the meat which perisheth,” the
very thing that Jesus forbade. The method of the Quakers
is a very charitable one, for it prevents their poorer
members from going to the workhouse, or from begging in
the streets, as other Christians are so often forced to do.
They are enabled, by this plan'of industry and of “ taking
thought for the morrow,” to preserve their dignity and
self-respect, and to receive all the advantages of assistance
without being branded as paupers, who have to forfeit
many rights in consequence of their poverty. This scheme
of mutual aid is not based upon Christ’s advice to “ forsake
all,’’.under the insane idea that they will be kept alive, upon
the same principle that the ravens and the lilies of the field
are; on the contrary, among the Quakers all who can both
“toil and spin.” Jesus, in his method, counselled no sort
of thrift, nor made any provision for the time of need.
There is no record, that I am aware of, that any society of
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
27
men ever lived upon help from heaven without labor, and
due care being taken for the requirements of life. Certainly
such a society does not exist in “ Christian England.”
The burden of Christ’s preaching was, “ Repent, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand.” What was meant by this
kingdom it is rather difficult to decide, for it is variously
described in the Gospels. It is certain, however, that,
whether it signified the reign of peace and justice on
earth, or the appearance of Jesus “in the clouds,” neither
event has taken place up to date, although Christ said that
in his time the kingdom was “ at hand.” In Luke (xvii. 21)
it is stated “ the kingdom of God is within you ”; but that
does not quite harmonise with the description given of it
in Matthew (xiii. 47-50), where it is alleged that the
kingdom of heaven is “ like unto a net that was cast into
the sea,” which, when full, had the good of its contents
retained, and the bad cast away. “ So shall it be at the
end of the world,” when the angels are to “ sever the wicked
from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace
of fire : there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.”
Now, if this refers to a condition upon earth, it is not a
very happy one. And in neither case is there any light
thrown upon the rational conduct of men, either politically or
socially. Besides, the repeated references made by Christ
to the approaching end of all earthly institutions render
the idea of his being a reformer of this world altogether
meaningless. The termination of mundane affairs was to
occur in the presence of those to whom Jesus was speaking
(Matthew xvi. 28). Whatever other texts may be cited to
the contrary, the meaning here is clear, that no opportunity
was to be given, and no provisions made, to reform the
political and social conditions of earth. Let any one read
the twenty-fourth chapter of Matthew, and try to harmonise
the declarations there ascribed to Christ with the belief that
his mission was to reform the world, and the impossibility
of the task will soon be evident. True, in Matthew (xxv.)
works of utility are required to secure a place at the
“right hand” of God. But what does this involve?
Uniformity of belief (Mark xvi. 16), and only the relief,
not the cure, of poverty. No scheme was even hinted at
by Christ whereby the great army of the poor and
depraved should be impossible. He was inferior to the
�28
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
French philosopher, who aimed at providing a condition of
society wherein men should be neither depraved nor poor.
To put the matter concisely, what are the factors of
political and social progress ? Briefly, they are these:
The cultivation of the intellect, the extension of physical
and mental freedom, the recognition and the application of
the principle of justice and liberty to all members of the
community, regardless of their belief or non-belief in
theology, the knowledge and application of science and
art, the organisation of labor and the proper cultivation of
the soil, the possession of political power, the under
standing of the true value and use of wealth, and, finally,
the persistent study of, and the constant struggling against,
the numerous evils, wrongs, and injustice that now rob life
of its comforts and real worth. These are the agencies
that all men, who claim to be political and social reformers,
should support and cultivate. Not one of these originated
with Jesus, and throughout his career he never availed
himself of these essentials of all progress. Thus, to
designate him as the great social redeemer is entirely
unjustifiable. His very mode of living was the opposite to
that of a practical reformer. He was an ascetic, and
avoided as much as possible the turmoil of public life,
from which he might have learnt something of what was
necessary to adjust the social relations. Prayer, not work,
was his habit. In the day, and at night, would he retire
to the solitude of the mountain, and there pray to his
father (Luke vi. 12 and xxi. 37). So far did he believe in
the efficacy of supplications to God that he frequently told
his disciples that whatever they asked of his father he
would grant the request (Matthew xviii. 19 ; xxi. 22;
John xvi. 23). That this was a delusion is clear from the
fact that he prayed himself for the unity of Christendom,
that his followers might be one (John xvii. 21); yet from
his time down to the present divisions have always existed
among Christians. He distinctly promised that “What
soever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do” (John
xiv. 13, 14). Relying upon this, the Church for centuries
has been asking that unbelief should cease, and yet we find
it more extensive to-day than it ever was. The lesson
learnt from experience is, that all reforms are the result of
active work, not the outcome of prayerful meditations.
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
29
With all these drawbacks in the character of Jesus, it is
to me marvellous how he can be accepted as a model for us
in the present age. But thousands of his devotees insist
upon claiming him as their Ideal, although they cannot
regulate their conduct by such a standard. Such persons
overlook the fact that, if the better parts of an Ideal are
marred by that which is erroneous and impracticable, it is
comparatively useless as a guide in life. That Christ’s
alleged teachings are so marred the Gospels amply testify.
His conduct, on several occasions, was such as his
followers would not attempt to emulate to-day. Such, for
instance, as his treatment of his parents (Luke ii. 43-49 ;
John ii. 4); his cursing of the fig-tree (Matthew xxi. 18, 19);
his driving the money changers from the temple with “ a
scourge of small cards ” (John ii. 15); his possession of an
ass and a colt, which evidently did not belong to him, and
riding upon both of them into Jerusalem (Matthew xxi.
2-11); his expletives to the Pharisees (Luke xi. 37-44); his
breaking up the peace of the domestic circle (Matthew x.
34-36).
Judged by the New Testament, Christ was certainly not
“The Light of the World,” for he revealed nothing of
practical value, and he taught no virtues that were before
unknown. No doubt in his life, supposing he ever lived,
there were many commendable features; but he was far
from being perfect. While he might have been wellmeaning, he was in belief superstitious, in conduct
inconsistent, in opinions contradictory, in teaching arbi
trary, in knowledge deficient, in faith vacillating, and in
pretensions great. He taught false notions of existence,
had no knowledge of science; he misled his followers by
claiming to be what he was not, and he deceived himself
by his own credulity. He lacked experimental force,
frequently living a life of isolation, and taking but slight
interest in the affairs of this world. It is this lack of
experimental force throughout the career of Christ that
renders his notions of domestic duties so thoroughly
imperfect. The happiness of a family, according to his
teaching, was to be impaired before his doctrines could be
accepted. So far as we know, he was never a husband or a
father ; and he did not aspire to be a statesman, a man of
science, or a politician.
Now, a person who lacks
�30
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
experience in these phases of life is not in the best
position to give practical and satisfactory lessons thereon.
Even in the conditions of life he is said to have filled, this
“ Light of the World ” failed to exhibit any high degree of
excellence, discrimination, or manly courage. As a son, he
lacked affection and consideration for the feelings of his
parents. As a teacher, he was mystical and rude; and as a
reasoner, he was defective and illogical. Lacking a true
method of reasoning, possessing no uniformity of character,
Christ exhibited a strange example—an example injudicious
to exalt and dangerous to emulate. At times he was
severe when he should have been gentle. When he might
have reasoned he frequently rebuked. When he ought to
have been firm and resolute he was vacillating. When he
should have been happy he was sorrowful and desponding.
After preaching faith as the one thing needful, he himself
lacked it when he required it the most. Thus, on the cross,
when a knowledge of a life of integrity, a sensibility of the
fulfilment of a good mission, a conviction that he was
dying for a good and righteous cause, and fulfilling the
object of his life—when all these should have given him
moral strength, we find him giving vent to utter despair.
So overwhelmed was he with grief and anxiety of mind
that he “began to be sorrowful and very heavy.” “My
soul,” he exclaimed, “ is sorrowful even unto death.” At
last, overcome with grief, he implores his father to rescue
him from the death which was then awaiting him.
Christ is paraded as the one redeemer of the world, but
his system lacks such essentials of all reform as worldly
ambition, and reliance upon the human power of regenera
tion. If we lament the poverty and wretchedness we
behold, we are told by Christians that “the poor shall
never cease out of the land.” If we seek to remove the
sorrow and despair existing around us, we are reminded
that they were “ appointed curses to the sons of Adam.”
If we work to improve our condition, we are taught that
we should remain “in that state of life in which it has
pleased God to call us.” When we endeavor to improve
our minds and to cultivate our intellects, we are informed
that “ we are of ourselves unable to do any good thing.”
If we seek to promote the happiness of others, we are
assured that “ faith in Christ is of more importance than
�WAS CHRIST A REFORMER 1
31
labor for man.” We to-day have but a vague idea of the
extent of the influence such teachings once exercised over
the minds of those who believed them. These teachings
have permeated the minds of orthodox Christians, stifling
their reason and perverting their judgment, till they
cherish the delusion that the reasonings of philosophers,
the eloquence of poets, and the struggles of patriots are
all worse than useless unless purified by the “ Spirit of
Christ.” It is such delusions which foster the erroneous
and retarding belief that every thought which does not
aspire to the throne of Christ, every action which is not
sanctioned by him, and every motive which does not
proceed from a love for him should be discouraged as
antagonistic to our real progress in life.
It is contended by some that, although Christ did not
give detailed remedies for existing evils, he taught
“ general principles ” which would, if acted upon, prove a
panacea for the wrongs of life. This was not so, for his
“general principles” lacked the saving power that was
desired. What were those “ principles ” as laid down in
the Gospels ? So far as they can be understood, they were
as follows: Absolute trust in God ; implicit belief in
himself; reliance upon the prayer of supplication; disregard
of the world; taking no anxious thought for the morrow ;
encouragement of poverty, and contempt of riches;
obedience to the law of the Old Testament; neglect of
home and families; non-resistance of evil; that persecution
in this world and punishment in some other would follow
the rejection of Christianity; and that sickness was caused
by the possession of devils. These are among the leading
“ principles ” taught by Christ; and, if they were acted
upon, there would be an end of all progress, harmony, and
self-reliance.
But even if the “general principles”
propounded by Jesus were good, that would not be enough
to make him the greatest reformer. It is necessary, in
addition to knowing what is to be done, to have the
knowledge of how it is to be done. And this is just what
Jesus has not taught us. Principles do not aid progress
unless they can be applied ; and, whatever value his
teachings may have as matters of belief, they are incapable
of application in the great cause of political and social
advancement in the nineteenth century.
�32
WAS CHRIST A REFORMER ?
Judged from the Secular standpoint, the real redeemers
of the world are those who study the great facts of
nature, learning her secrets, and revealing her power and
value to the human family. While Christ devoted himself
to the mysteries of theology, such reformers as Copernicus,
Galileo, Bruno, and subsequently Newton, Locke, Darwin,
and a host of other servants of humanity, endeavored
to the best of their ability to ascertain the truths of
existence, and to vindicate the principle of freedom.
Copernicus and his immediate successors redeemed the
world from errors which for ages had been nursed by the
Church; Locke based his philosophy upon knowledge, not
upon the faiths of theology; Newton contended that' the
universe was regulated by natural law, not by supernatural
power; and Darwin exploded the Bible error of creation.
These redeemers rescued mankind from the burden of
ignorance and superstition that had so long prevented the
recognition of truth and the advancement of knowledge.
Shakespeare contributed more to the enlightenment of the
human race than Christ was capable of doing; Darwin far
surpassed St. Paul in bringing to view the great forces of
nature, and the Freethought heroes and martyrs aided the
emancipation of intellect to a far higher degree than either
the “Carpenter of Nazareth ” or the whole of his followers.
The power that has enabled these secular redeemers of the
world to achieve their glorious results was found, not in
perplexing theologies, but in the principles of Science and
Liberty—the true saviors of men.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Was Christ a political and social reformer?
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles, 1836-1906
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895]
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co. (London, England)
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Was Christ a political and social reformer?), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1572
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity
Jesus Christ
politics
Social Reform
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/577a7d9d399013b4d1438ff034fb5fa6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EeHJlwyHlu6bsyMn8gCj4RcI-O%7ElChlJIo-kbcFHeVoHf87gfXEMJvp0A13HdD9x2aK5KZpCoHBZDlZXo2q8a5LkQlKJiIp%7EwYXmagqadlgY8aFfo9CVvzoyrWSEBKRY2otFsrHgl8Z02ErlimQj%7EreKqbCuqBMo%7EO3a3PSPBcKM6RG3axsvGfnjMx-CQVnc8C3-xi1g0VXbGqgifdoAqPdSQN6A-acxS4M8KQIqBRbIUtiSBhMQQ5HeQA1cgjh75YkYTM1q4YQtxAwsGzo%7EahUNFJvNn-bLXPR%7EnlrM%7EWUsO1DK8NafL-0TYXwhXF375FtL6PYk139oIolYFiBCdQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
51f6097585b77ea0437375114c072a5e
PDF Text
Text
hh ‘Thousand
IjJlYTHIC CHRISTS
||1ND THE TRUE
I ^.CRITICISM OF SOME MODERN THEORIES
. •
y Rev. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, m a
d d.
L*te Jaa>es Long Lecturer on Oriental ReVgura^i
NTER
AND
LONGHURST
g PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, E.C.
FOR
NORTH LONDON CHRISTIAN
EVIDENCE LEAGUE
*
Sixpence ndtt
��N'&8
MYTHIC CHRISTS
AND THE TRUE
A CRITICISM OF SOME MODERN THEORIES
By Rev. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, m.a„ d.d.
THE NORTH LONDON CHRISTIAN
EVIDENCE LEAGUE
12, Hici STREET, HAMPSTEAD, N.W.
1909
��nahonalskularsooety
PREFACE
“ Our age,
Our weakling age, sick of a deadly doubt.”
QNE of the most urgent needs of the present time
is that of men who will think for themselves
and not be “ driven about by every wind of doctrine.”
In many cases, it is true, the struggle for daily bread
is nowadays so acute that not a few busy men and
women have neither time nor energy to devote
themselves to deep study. At the same time they
are ready and willing to accept the latest informa
tion which they can obtain on all matters of im
portance. We know that some people are specialists
in scientific matters, others in archaeology, others in
other subjects, and we are for the most part com
pelled to take for granted the results which such
men have reached by their learned researches.
Natural as this attitude is in certain respects, it is
not wise to adopt it too readily in religious matters.
“ Call no man your father upon earth,” “ Prove all
things, hold fast that which is good,” are Scriptural
maxims which commend themselves to our common
sense and to our English love of freedom. We should
practise these directions more than we do. If we
must consult a physician, let us make sure before
hand that he is not a quack. Let us not rashly
stake the moral and religious interests of ourselves
�iv
PREFACE
and of those who are near and dear to us for time
and for eternity on the unsupported assertions of
the first person we meet who makes an attack on
Christianity and the Bible. Let us occasionally
doubt our own doubts. The Christian Faith has re
sisted the billows and storms of nearly nineteen
centuries, and it is therefore at least unlikely that
the “ gates of Hades ” will now “ prevail against it,”
the more so because all or almost all the arguments
brought against it to-day have been used again and
again before our time without success.
The desire to be “ up-to-date” in matters of thought
does not generally exert undue influence upon men
of sober earnestness and common sense, such as
those for whom this little book is mainly intended.
But more shallow minds—though for them too
Christ died and rose again—more readily yield to
the temptation to be “ abreast of the times,” as they
think. The result of this want of thought too often
is that worn-out theories and long exploded errors
are for a time accepted as the latest discoveries of
the most enlightened age in the world’s history.
This is not the best way of being “ up-to-date.” Let
us study, and think, and pray.
At the present moment not a few writers, some of
them men of learning, others men who have no claim
to be considered such, are endeavouring to convince
“ the man in the street ” that certain leading doctrines
of Christianity have been borrowed from heathenism.
In some cases these people are ignorant of what
the doctrines they are assailing really are. In nearly
every instance the assailant shews that he has never
■
�PREFACE
v
devoted any careful study to Christian evidences.
Not unfrequently it becomes evident from the
language he uses that he is absolutely unaware
that such things exist! If, besides this degree of
ignorance, he possesses a perfervid imagination, he
is in a position to write, in all good faith, a book
admirably calculated to cause deep spiritual distress
to those who are not well grounded in their faith
in Christ, who have no personal knowledge of the
Master Himself, but merely a more or less tra
ditionary belief in Him. If this feeling of distress
causes them to enquire and so learn the certainty
of those things wherein they have (or should have)
been instructed, the result will be good for them
selves in every way. Enquiry may lead them to
genuine personal knowledge of the Master, whom
to know is everlasting life.
It is in the hope of being able to help those who
are really in earnest in seeking the truth that I have
written this little book. It is the result of years of
study of Oriental religions and of their sacred books.
My sceptical mind has forced me to doubt other
men’s statements about the teaching contained in
these, and has thus compelled me to study them in
their original languages. Therefore I base my con
clusions not on other people’s assertions, but on my
own researches.
I candidly confess that I once myself knew by
painful experience the agony of religious doubt and
uncertainty on the most vital of all subjects. It
therefore seems to me a simple matter of duty, now
that I know the truth as it is in Jesus Christ, to
�vi
PREFACE
strive to remove difficulties from other men’s paths.
If in any measure I succeed in this, it will be its own
reward.
In the course of my study of anti-Christian works,
I must regretfully acknowledge that I have not
always been impressed with the conviction that their
authors desired at any cost to find out and declare
“the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth,” though one naturally starts with that assump
tion and endeavours to cling to it to the end in
every case.
The nineteenth century produced quite a large
crop of theories more or less opposed to Christianity.
It was an age of hasty and ill-considered conclusions.
The tide is now turning. What has well been said
regarding Wolf’s hypothesis about the Homeric
poems is true also in reference to much that has
been written against the Christian faith. “ The
operose constructions of the German professors ”
(and English sciolists) “ are being obliterated, like a
child’s sand castles, by the returning tide of sense ”
(Times, lit. supplement, 8th March, 1907).
�CONTENTS
PAGE
Preface
iii
CHAPTER
I.
Mithra and Modern Myths
II.
The “Indian Christ” of Some Modern
Mythologists...............................................
24
III. The Historical Buddha and Modern
Mythology...............................................
34
IV. The Myth of Adonis, Attis, and Osiris .
45
Our Modern Mythologists v. the VirginBirth
.........................................................
75
V.
i
��Mythic Christs and
the True
MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
A/TYTHS being the offspring of credulity and
ignorance, it is not surprising that they should
spring up in our own day, when our magazines tell
of “ J ulia’s ” latest feats in calligraphy and some of
our London papers question whether the Christ
of the Gospels ever lived at all. We find so many
modern myths in this country, all professing to be
very ancient and to give true and reliable accounts
of the stories current in heathen lands about
various deities and heroes, that their existence and
the credit which they obtain shew that the age of
miracles is not past. The credulity of the incre
dulous is a daily miracle. Provided that the person
who writes a book or an article on any Oriental
religion or philosophy is able to shew his gross
ignorance of Christianity and his utter lack of ac
quaintance with Eastern languages, he is apparently
at once accepted by most of our fellow-countrymen
as an authority upon all these points. To dispute
his “conclusions” is to prove one’s own ignorance
and “narrowmindedness,” all the more so should one
have spent a large part of one’s life in the study of
such subjects and among those who profess the
religions and philosophies in question. It bears out
B
�2
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the classical proverb, “ The people wish to be de
ceived, let them be so.”
To the mere student of things Eastern this attitude
of “Modern Thought” (lucus a non lucendo') in Eng
land is full of interest. His Oriental studies have
given him some acquaintance at first-hand with the
mythology of the East, and he fondly fancies that
he knows all about Krishna and his mother DevakI,
Mithra and the “ Petra Genetrix,” Isis and the
infant Horus. As he has probably consulted the
“Ethnic Scriptures” in which these tales are told,
and read them in their original languages, there is
some excuse for this fancy on his part. But when
he turns to modern English books and periodicals,
he finds an entirely new collection of tales on these
very subjects, tales for the most part unknown to
the worshippers of the deities in question. To his
jaded mind these have, at least, all the charm of
utter novelty. He has certainly never read or heard
anything of the kind before. He often finds authori
ties quoted for the assertions made by the writers
of these wonderful stories. Should he take the trouble
to consult these authorities, he finds either that they
have evidently been misunderstood, or that they
actually assert something quite contrary to what
they are quoted in support. Occasionally the chapter
or verse referred to does not exist in the book quoted.
The student is surprised at all this, but he concludes
that no man in his senses would accept as true
assertions so baseless, and statements made by men
who have at least shewn no knowledge whatever of
the subjects on which they write. He is therefore
astounded to find hard-headed business men, men
priding themselves on their common-sense and the
impossibility of taking them in, men who would not
risk a penny in business transactions without long
and careful scrutiny—to find these men blindly
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
3
accepting such romances without enquiry, and stak
ing their present and future happiness upon the
correctness of asserted “ facts ” which are destitute
of a shade of proof. There are, no doubt, reasons
for this strange attitude of mind, for this marvellous
credulity, but justification there cannot be. Even a
very casual enquiry would, in many cases, shew the
phenomenal inaccuracy of many modern disquisi
tions upon Comparative Religion and kindred sub
jects. But our credulous unbeliever has no time for
enquiry. Besides, he is too certain of his “ conclu
sions” to care to examine the ground on which
they are based. Possibly it might turn out to be
another instance of “terminological inexactitude,”
and this is an age of myth-making. Why should
not modern myths be as good as ancient ones and
quite as reliable ? Besides, enquiry might shew that
Christ was true, and that might, suggest the duty of
honourably keeping one’s baptismal vow. On the
whole, then, many a man prefers not to enquire, not
to think, though he calls himself a sceptic (enquirer)
and talks loudly of “free thought,” which to him
seems to mean freedom from thought.
We proceed to adduce evidence to prove this as far
as Mithra is concerned.
A modern writer on the subject, who tells us that
his book “challenges1 criticism above all by its thesis,”
informs us that “vigilant scholars confess that we
know very little as to the Mithraic religion,”2 and
that “we cannot hope to find much direct know
ledge.” Yet he proceeds, as do others, to afford us
a complete account of the legends and the inmost
theology of the Mithraists, together with details of
its origin. All this he has warned us is not “ direct
1 Mr. J. M. Robertson, Pagan Christs, preamble, p. xi., ed.
of 1903.
a Oi). cit., p. 292.
�4
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
knowledge,” and so we should be prepared to find
that his “ imagination bodies forth the forms of things
unknown, and . . . gives to airy nothing a local habita
tion and a name.” This unquestionably is what we
do find in his book and in others on the same lines.
A few examples will suffice to show this.
. Mr. Robertson says, “ Mithra1 comes to occupy a
singular position as between the two great Powers of
good and evil, Ormazd and Ahriman . . . being
actually named the MEDIATOR (Plutarch, Isis, and
Osins, cap. 46; Julian, in Regem Solem, capp. 9, io,
12), and figuring to the devout eye as a humane
and beneficent God, nearer to men than the Great
Spirit of Good, a Saviour, a Redeemer, eternally
young, Son of the Most High, and a preserver of
mankind from the Evil One. In brief, he is a Pagan
Christ.” “The Khorda Avesta2 (xxvi., 107) styles
Mithra ‘the Word? In the Vendidad (Fargand
xix. 15) Zarathustra speaks of Mithra, Sraosha, ‘the
Holy Word,’ thus joining Mithra with ‘the Word.’
. . . The Mithraic3 mysteries, then, of the burial
and. resurrection of the Lord, the Mediator and
Saviour; burial in. a rock tomb and resurrection from
that tomb: the sacrament of bread and water, the
marking on the forehead with a mystic mark, all
these were in practice . . . before the publication of
the Christian Gospel of a Lord who was buried in a
rock tomb, and rose from that tomb on the day
of the sun.” He then endeavours to find some frag
ment of proof that Mithra was regarded as Virginborn, and, though he fails in the search, he nevertheless
says, “ It4 was further practically a matter of course
that his divine mother should be styled Virgin,” and
asserts that he figures “as supernaturally born of
1 Op. cit., p. 304.
s Op. cit., pp. 333, 334.
2 Op. cit., pp. 329, 330.
4 Op. cit., p. 339.
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
5
a Virgin Mother and of the Most High God ’’ in the
fourth and fifth centuries, quoting the authority of
an Armenian Christian writer. We shall see later
what this authority does actually say, and how far
he is from supporting such a statement.
Men of our own age are popularly supposed to be
so ignorant on these matters that a writer of the
same school of “ thought ” ventured to publish an
article on Mithraism and kindred subjects in the
Nineteenth Century—and After a few years ago, in
which the following passage occurs :—
“. . . Just1 as the religion of Isis2 did, [Mithraism]
resembled that of Christ in being a religion of in
ward holiness, of austere self-discipline and purity;
but the details of its resemblance are incomparably
more close and curious. . . . According to Mithraic
theology, God, considered in His totality, is a Being
so infinite and so transcendent that His direct con
nexion with man and the universe is inconceivable.
In order to become the father of man and Creator,
He manifested Himself in a second personality,
namely Mithra, who was in his cosmic character
identified with the ‘ unconquered sun,’ and, as a
moral and intellectual being, was the Divine Word
or Reason, and, in more senses than one, the
‘ Mediator ’ between man and the Most High. . . .
This Divine Saviour came into the world as an
infant. His first worshippers were shepherds; and
the day of his nativity was December 25th. His
followers preached a severe and rigid morality, chief
among their virtues being temperance, chastity, re
nunciation and self-control. . . . They had seven
sacraments, of which the most important were
baptism, confirmation, and an Eucharistic Supper, at
which the communicants partook of the divine nature
of Mithra under the species of bread and wine.”
1 Nineteenth Century for September, 1905, p. 496.
2 Vide p. 85.
�6
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
If we know all this about Mithra, we know a great
deal, and Mr. Robertson is too modest in speaking
of our knowledge as being very slight on the subject.
Noticing that all the phrases which are employed
in the above extracts are those used in Christian
theology, some of them of quite recent coinage,
others found in Holy Scripture, and most actually
copied from the English Authorised Version of the
Bible, we enquire with great interest what Mithraic
literature there is whence these modern exponents
of the faith learnt all the exact details which they so
graphically lay before us. Perhaps we carry our
researches further and look for Mithraic Scriptures
in the “ Sacred Books of the East” series. We do
not find them there, nor is the reason far to seek.
There are no Mithraic Scriptures extant.
A German writer, A. Dieterich, indeed, not long
since published a Greek document, edited from a
papyrus now in Paris, which he called a Mithraic
Liturgy.1 Possibly it is Mithraic, though the great
authority on the subject, Prof. Cumont, denies this,
but it is certainly not a liturgy, nor does it state
one single doctrine of Mithraism. It does not even
form the one solitary exception which is said to
prove the rule.
All the materials upon which our knowledge of
Mithraism, properly so called, depends are contained
in Prof. Cumont’s Textes et Monuments Figures relatifs
aux Mysteres de Mithra? A short English transla
tion without the original quotations has also ap
peared. It is easy for anyone who is really in
earnest upon the subject, therefore, to ascertain ex
actly how much and how little we know about
Mithraic theology. He will find that we have no
proof whatever of the greater part of the “facts”
1 A. Dieterich, Eine Mithrasliturgie.
2 Two vols., Bruxelles, 1899-1906.
(Teubner, Leipzig, 1903.)
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
7
stated in the extracts given above. The writers who
endeavour to represent Mithra as a “ Pagan Christ ”
have openly borrowed the phrases they use from
Christianity itself, and less honestly still do they
read Christian doctrines into Mithraism. Besides the
few sculptures which have been found representing
Mithra’s birth (not from a Virgin, but) from a rock,
and his killing a bull, these writers depend upon the
references to Mithraism which a few Christian and
heathen, mostly Greek and Latin, authors make.
An earlier stage of the worship of Mithra is, how
ever, known to us from certain parts of the ancient
Sacred Books of India and Persia. These we shall
have to examine, in order to enquire whether they
lend any support whatever to such assertions as
those which we are considering.
Mithra was worshipped by the ancient Aryans of
both India and Persia before and after their separa
tion from one another. The verses in the Rig- Veda
and the Avesta in which he is mentioned, assign him
such lofty attributes that very probably at a remote
period of antiquity he did represent a by no means
degraded conception of the Divine. Such lofty ideas
about God we find in some measure in the most
ancient records of all religions which we are able to
investigate. But in all Ethnic faiths the conception
becomes gradually debased, and Mithra forms no
exception.
In the Rig- Veda, Mithra (or, as he is there styled,
Mitra) appears for the most part in close connexion
with Varuna or the personified “ Heaven.” He is
sometimes associated with other gods, and is rarely
alone. His name signifies “ Friend,” and he is styled
priyatamas nrinam, “ most beloved by men ” (R.V.
Mandala vii., Hy. 62, v. 4). Varuna and he be
hold all things through their common Eye, the
Sun, but they are spoken of as two distinct gods
�8
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
(R.V., Mand. vii., Hy. 61, v. i). Mitra is the eldest
of the seven Adityas or sons of Aditi, the goddess
of the infinite expanse, and her husband Kasyapa.
“He is greater than earth and sky; he supports all
the gods ” (R.V., Mand. iii., Hy. 59, vv. 7 and 8). But
as in Vedic times Varuna himself had already begun
to give way to inferior gods, and gradually to cease to
be worshipped, so Mitra too was evidently receding
into oblivion.
In Persia also it is certain that Zoroastrianism
tended to lower the position which he had previously
held in men’s minds. The Avesta does not include
him among the seven Amesha Spentas, or “ Bountiful
Immortals,” who correspond with the Adityas of
India. Yet in some passages language is used of
him which shews that there was a tendency to regard
him as a rival to Ahura Mazda (Ormazd) himself.
To counteract this perhaps he was sometimes said to
have been created by the latter of equal dignity, as
we read in Yasht x., 1:—
“Ahura Mazda said to beneficent Zarathustra
(Zoroaster), ‘ Then, when I created (set forth) Mithra,
owner of broad pastures, O beneficent one, then I
rendered him as great in worshipfulness, as great in
venerableness, as even myself, Ahura Mazda? ”
As he was associated with Varuna in the Rig- Veda
so in the Avesta we sometimes find him worshipped
in connexion with Ahura Mazda, as for instance in
Yasht x., v. 145 :—
“ Mithra, Ahura, the lofty ones, the imperishable,
the righteous, do we praise: both stars and moon
and sun, over the baresman-twigs: Mithra, lord of all
the provinces, do we honour.”
Mithra was regarded as the deity who punished
untruth and breach of faith, and his wisdom was
such that we are told {Yasht x., v. 107), “Greater
natural wisdom attendeth not earthly mortal in the
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
9
world than even the natural wisdom which attendeth
heavenly Mithra.” But he soon became identi
fied with the Sun, or perhaps with the fravashi
or Genius which ruled the latter, for v, 136 of the
same Yasht says of him :—
“ Mithra, owner, of broad pastures, the watchful
one, do we honour, him whom red swift yoked steeds
draw in a chariot with one golden wheel: and his
spear-points are all-resplendent if one bears offerings
towards his abode.”
Here we notice his “one wheel” (cakkra—\he
Sanskrit cakray also meaning “ disc of the sun ”), his
red steeds, his “ spear-points all-resplendent,” that is
to say, the rays of the sun. Hence in later Mithraism
the god is represented as shooting an arrow into
a rock (the sky or a cloud) and bringing out water.
So too he kills the bull (that is, he fertilizes the
ground) by striking him with his knife, that is, with
the solar rays.
Mithra not only maintains good on earth, but he
also aids Ahura Mazda in the age-long contest with
Anro-Mainyus (Ahriman) and his creatures. As the
sun at night visits the Underworld, so Mithra
becomes one of the deities who govern the region of
the dead. Hence at the end of the world, when men
come to be tried and endeavour to cross the Chinvat
bridge, Mithra is to be associated with Sraosha and
Rashnu in the task of judging them. Even now he
is considered to be one of the deities to whom wor
ship is due. Hence in the Pahlavi “Patel” or Con
fession, the penitent acknowledges his offence
“ Before the Creator Ormazd and the Ameshospands
and before the good Law of the Mazda-worshippers,
before Mithra, Srosh and Rashnu, before the heavenly
Izeds, before the earthly I zeds,” as well as before the
spirit of Zoroaster and the religious officials of his
faith.
�10
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Professor Hermann Oldenberg styles Mithra “ the
extremely ancient Sun-god,” and rightly says that he
was “ undoubtedly one of the most prominent figures
in the popular faith of the Iranian peoples, and also
in the worship of the Achaemenian kings.” Though
his name does not occur in Darius’ Inscriptions, yet
Artaxerxes Mnemon and Artaxerxes Ochus couple
him with Ahura Mazda and the goddess Anahita
when they pray to these deities for the protection of
their empire. In Darius’ time, although the “ clan
gods” are at least once mentioned as worthy of
honour, yet otherwise Ahura Mazda is spoken of in
terms which would befit a monotheist. But even
in the Avesta itself we fipd polytheism fully adopted.
In the Vendidad (Fargand xix. § 13) Ahura Mazda
bids Zoroaster invoke “Limitless Time” (Zrvdn
Akarana1} as well as Vayu the atmosphere, the
Winds, and “ the holy, fair daughter of Ahura Mazda ”
(Spenta Armaiti, the Genius of the Earth). It is not
at all strange, therefore, to find that the fullydeveloped Mithraism of later times associated itself
with the worship of all kinds of other deities.
We have seen that Mr. J. M. Robertson in his
clever work of imagination, confounding Zoroastrian
ism with much later Mithraism to some degree,
informs us that the Khorda Avesta styles Mithra
“The Word,” and hence would have us form a
certain conclusion regarding the origin of the Chris
tian doctrine of the Divine Reason. In proof of his
assertion he quotes chapter xxvi. 107, of the work
cited. There is no such chapter in existence, if we
may consider the standard edition of the original
1 Mr. J. M. Robertson’s remark that Mithraism borrowed its enig
matical “Supreme God,” Kronos-Zervan (which he calls “a Baby
lonian conception ”) in Armenia, and was thus “prepared in Armenia
for its cosmopolitan career in the western world ” (Pagan Christs,
p. 302) is therefore lacking in accuracy.
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
ii
text, Professor Karl Geldner’s, as an authority. But
possibly this is merely a printer’s error, though an
unfortunate one. We may remark, however, that
the title of “ Word,” given to Mithra alike in Pagan
Christs and in the Nineteenth Century article we
have quoted, also fails to occur in the Avesta. Nor
is Mithra there entitled the Divine Reason. Mr.
Robertson also tells us that Mithra is associated with
the “Word” in Fargand, xix. 15, of the Vendidad.
If this were true, it would shew that Mithra was not
identified with the Divine Word, though this identi
fication has previously been distinctly asserted by
our exponent of Mithraism. Where, then, does the
Logos doctrine as derived in some measure from
the latter come in? But the fact is that the Avesta
nowhere contains any doctrine of the Divine Logos
at all. The proper translation of the verse runs thus
(it is supposed to be spoken by Ahura Mazda):—
“ A speech (yakhshem) did Zoroaster utter to me:
‘ I invoke, O Ahura Mazda, Righteous One, the
Creation, the Law, I invoke Mithra, owner of wide
pastures, well-armed, most brilliant in his conquests,
most victorious in his conquests ; I, grasping in hand
weapons against the head of the demons, invoke
Sraosha, Ashi, the well-formed.” The word vakhshem
here evidently means “ speech,” for the very speech
itself follows in the verse, as is evident from the
translation. It is not Ahura Mazda’s but Zoroaster’s.
It has no nearer connexion with Mithra than with
the other beings and things invoked therein along
with him. We may be pardoned for failing to find
any doctrine of the Divine Logos here.
Possibly, however, Mr. Robertson intended rather
to refer to the fourteenth verse in the same chapter.
There the phrase mdthro spento, “sacred text,” has
sometimes been rather carelessly rendered “ Holy
Word.” He may have been misled by some such
�12
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
translation, a thing impossible for a person at all
acquainted with the original language. Mathro is
the same as the Sanskrit mantra, “ a hymn,” and the
context shews that the reference here is to the
sacred text of the Avesta, which was supposed to be
revealed by Ahura Mazda, “whose spirit is the
sacred text ” {yenhe urva mathro spento), as this verse
states. The passage in Mr. Robertson’s book which
we are criticising, in accordance with his already
quoted invitation, is a very admirable instance of the
danger incurred by depending upon an English
version of an Oriental work. Our author first reads
Christian theology into books in which nothing of
the kind occurs, and then triumphantly points out
how clearly such doctrines have been derived from
Ethnic sources!
Having thus far dealt with Mithra in Vedic Hin
duism and in Avestic Zoroastrianism, we have now
to consider the origin and progress of Mithraism,
properly so called, which differs from both at least
as much as Buddhism does from Hinduism. To
confound these religions with one another is hardly
a proof of competence to discuss the subject.
The first European writer who mentions Mithra is
the old Greek historian Herodotus. His worship was
then apparently confined to Persia itself. Herodotus
(i. 131) tells us that the Persians gave the name
Mithra to the goddess Aphrodite or Venus, whom he
associates with the abominations of Mylitta-worship
at Babylon. This is doubtless a mistake, since
Mithra was a god, not a goddess. But his very mis
take gives good reason to surmise that he knew
of Mithra’s close association with the licentious rites
early connected with Anahita, a Persian goddess
whom the Greeks called Anaitis. This is the first
reason we have for doubting whether the religion of
Mithra “ resembled that of Christ in being a religion
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
13
of inward holiness, of austere self-discipline and
purity,” as the writer in the Nineteenth Century,
already quoted, asserts. We shall find plenty of
other proofs to the contrary to adduce further on.
Even in early days in Persia, though Mithra was the
guardian of Truth, he is not asserted to be that of
Purity. As he was said to fertilise the earth with
his rays, and was early associated with Anahita
(which Mr. Robertson admits, p. 344, and which we
learn from the Inscriptions of the Achaemenian
Kings), and since it is acknowledged {Pagan Christs,
p. 339), that this Anahita was a goddess of “fruitful
ness and nutriency,” Mithra can hardly have been
ever regarded as encouraging this particular virtue.
It seems almost a pity to mar the fair picture pre
sented to us by the poetic imagination of our
opponents, but our appeal is to fact and not to
fiction.
Alexander the Great’s conquests brought Persia
into close connexion with the Western world. Hence
it was that Mithra-worship, more or less affected and
corrupted by the Babylonian cult of the Sun-god
Shamshu perhaps, gradually became better known in
other lands. It seems never to have spread among
the Greeks. But when the Cilician pirates, who
would naturally be drawn to the service of “a humane
and beneficent God ” and a religion “ of inward holi
ness, of austere self-discipline and purity,” were
captured by Pompey (Plutarch, Life of Pompey, ch.
xxiv.) and brought to Italy, they introduced into Rome
the worship of their god Mithra (B.c. 68). For many
years no attempt seems to have been made to spread
the religion, and it was still confined in the main to
slaves and others who had come from the East. It
formed an “ intimate union ” at Rome with “ the mys
teries of the Great Mother,” Cybele (Cumont, Mysteries
of Mithra, English version, p. 19, cf. pp. 30, 86, 87,
�i4
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
179, 198), than which few rites were more licentious.
Everyone is aware of the infamous practices of her
priests, the Galli, and of the association therewith of the
story of Attis. The original conception of Mithra had
been, as we have seen, a noble one; but there seems too
much reason to fear that, in company with that of
Anahita, it had undergone moral degradation. Other
wise it would not have been possible for Mithra
and Cybele to have been worshipped “in intimate
communion with each other throughout the entire
extent of the Empire” (Cumont, p. 179), or at least
in every part of it into which Mithraism finally
spread. For, though Mr. Robertson says: “ Mith
raism was, in point of range, the most nearly universal
religion of the Western world in the early centuries
of the Christian era” (p. 289), yet this statement
requires modification. Cumont informs us that, at
first at least, “ The influence of this small band of
sectaries on the great mass of the Roman population
was virtually as infinitesimal as is to-day the influence
of Buddhist societies in modern Europe ” {Mysteries,
p. 37). “ It was not until the end of the first century
that the name of Mithra,” he says, “ began to be
generally bruited abroad in Rome.” In Plutarch’s
time (46-125 A.D.) “the Mazdean sect already enjoyed
a certain notoriety in the Occident.” Of Roman
writers the first to mention it is Statius in his Thebais
(Book I., fin.), about 80 A.D. Then, and throughout
its whole subsequent course in the West, the worship
of Mithra was recognised as being simply and solely
adoration of the Sun, with whom inscriptions found
especially in Germany, but also in Dacia, Southern
Gaul, England, and other countries, openly identify
the god. His shrines or chapels were usually under
ground, and in those which have been discovered are
found in Greek and Latin such inscriptions as “ To
the Sungod Mithra,” “To Mithra the unconquered Sun.”
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
15
Mithraism was largely a soldiers’ religion, and this
explains why it was carried by the legions to so
many parts of the Empire. The worshippers of
Mithra “rated strength higher than gentleness, and
preferred courage to lenity. From their long associa
tion with barbarous religions there was perhaps a
residue of cruelty in their ethics” (Cumont, p. 142).
The oldest Mithraic inscriptions found at Rome date
from the reigns of Trajan (A.D. 98-117) and Hadrian
(a.D. 117-138). Sculptures represent Mithra as a
youth wearing a Phrygian cap, starting forth from a
rock. In his hand he holds a torch. In others he is
a vigorous young man with one knee planted upon
a bull, into whose neck he has driven a dagger. Boys
holding torches stand by him. A dog licks up the
flowing blood of the bull, as sometimes does a serpent
also. A scorpion has seized the bull, and a raven
stands near at hand. These probably are connected
with the signs of the Zodiac through which the Sun
passes. Elsewhere Mithra as the Solar archer shoots
an arrow into the rock or cloud, whence flows a stream
of water.
Porphyry, on the authority of Eubulus, tells us that
the worshippers of Mithra were divided into a number
of different Orders, all believing in the Transmigration
of Souls, and that the members of the highest order,
the “ Fathers,” who were styled Eagles and Hawks,
abstained from animal food. He says that the
“ Initiated ” who took part in their “ orgies ” were, if
men called Lions, if women, Hyaenas. Some say that
there were seven classes,1 Ravens, Griffins, Soldiers,
Lions, Persians, Sun-runners, and Fathers, the Ravens
being the lowest order who waited on the others.
Tertullian says that they had “ virgins and continent
men” among them. Others deny that women were
1 It is to the initiatory rites undergone on entering these that modern
Mythology gives the title of “ Sacraments.”
�i6
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
allowed to join at all in the worship of Mithra,
and say that they were compelled to adore Cybele
instead. Nonnus tells us that eighty different kinds
of tortures were inflicted upon those who were being
initiated into the Mysteries: others say twelve, among
which are mentioned the test by fire and water, by
hunger, thirst and cold, by flogging, bleeding, branding
with hot irons, and the threat of being murdered.
Some at least of these, in particular the scourging
and the ablutions, originated in the ancient Persian
rites (Cumont, p. 6), others in Stoic ideas, which had
a “profound influence” on Mithraism. The religion
probably borrowed from Persia belief in a resurrec
tion, if it was not rather in transmigration. The
doctrine of a “renovation” or resurrection is found
only in very late portions of the Avesta, composed
when the Persians had for hundreds of years had
large Israelite colonies dwelling in the very midst of
their empire, at Ecbatana (Achmetha, now Hamadan)
and elsewhere. There can be no doubt that it was
derived from Israel. They had the custom of
“ baptising ” certain of their number (if we may use
the term baptism in the loose way in which our
opponents do) in the blood of a bull. This, the
taurobolion, was borrowed from the worship of Cybele.
Sacrifices of more than one kind were offered in their
subterranean temples. Lampridius (Commodus, cap.
ix.) tells us that the latter Emperor (a.d. 180-192) was
admitted to take part in the mystic rites of Mithraism,
and that as part of the ceremony he caused a human
being to be murdered in reality (and not only in
pretence, as at that time seems usually to have been
the case). But amid the strange and terrible rites by
means of which the neophyte was initiated on
ordinary occasions was, Cumont says, “a simulated
murder, which in its origin was undoubtedly real”
(p. 161). The Church historian Socrates tells us that
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
17
in A.D. 362, when a deserted temple of Mithra at
Alexandria was being removed, many human skulls
were discovered, which proved that human sacrifices
had been offered there (Bk. III., chap, ii., §§ 2-6).
One of the noteworthy things about Mithraism is
the way in which it won the favour of so many of
the Roman Emperors, generally the worst of them.
When King Tiridates of Armenia came to Rome,
Nero (A.D. 54-68) expressed a wish to be initiated
into the mysteries, and Tiridates adored in Nero an
emanation from Mithra himself (Cumont, pp. 85, 86).
The Emperors Aurelian, Diocletian, Galerius, and
Licinius, as well as Julian the Apostate, openly
favoured Mithraism, which was then at the zenith
of its power, and was destined to fade away gradually
before the spread of the Gospel. Julian (A.D. 361-3),
being an apostate from Christianity, seems to have
applied to Mithra some Christian titles.
Mithraism, “ far from hostility towards the ancient
Graeco-Roman beliefs . . . sought to accommodate
itself to them, in appearance at least. A pious mystic
could, without renouncing his faith, dedicate a votive
inscription to the Capitoline triad, Jupiter, Juno, and
Minerva ” (Cumont, pp. 175-7). In the fourth century
the high priests of the religion “ were found perform
ing the highest offices of the priesthood in temples
of all sorts ” (ibid?). “ In the region of the Rhine
the Celtic divinities were worshipped in the crypts of
the Persian god, or at least alongside of them.”
Professor Cumont shews clearly that it was to
Mithraism that we must trace the assumption of
divine titles by the emperors of Rome. The attempt
to supersede all other worship by the adoration of
the Emperor, regarded as in some degree the in
carnation of the Sun-god, was blasted, after a fierce
struggle carried on for centuries, only by the faithful
ness of the Christians, who preferred death to apostasy.
c
�i8
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Therefore a battle to the death continued for many
generations between Christianity and Mithraism. It
culminated in the utter defeat of the latter and its
ultimate extinction. Yet we are now gravely assured
that Christians mistook Mithraism for their own
faith, and adopted as their creed the leading tenets
of their deadliest foe. What they had previously
believed about their Divine Master and Lord, for
whom so many of them had died by fire in Nero’s
gardens, by the sword, by the teeth of wild beasts,
through forced labour in deadly mines, and by in
describable and manifold tortures, was, according to
our modern mythologists, so vague and ill-defined
that it practically vanished from their minds, leaving
room for the tenets of the great rival faith. Or, if
we are not prepared to believe all this, we are invited
to credit the assertion that the very first disciples
of Christ, the men who have given us the New
Testament, completely forgot all that they had seen
and heard of His life and teaching, and quite inno
cently fell into the error of attributing to Him the
details of a Mithraic myth which, in the form in
which its modern expounders have stated it, had not
yet come into existence !
Mr. Robertson informs us, as we have seen, that
Mithra figures “ as supernaturally born of a Virgin
mother and of the Most High God” in the fourth
and fifth centuries of the Christian era. In proof of
this he refers to the reply of the Christian bishops
of Armenia to the Persian viceroy Mihr Nerseh’s
attack upon Christianity, as quoted by Elisaeus
(Eghishe) the Armenian historian. Nothing whatever
of the sort occurs there. The reply contains only
two references to Mithra. In one of these the
Persians are quoted as saying Mihr astouads i knoche
dsanau, “ the god Mithra was born of a woman ”;
in the other we are informed that a Persian sage had
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
19
affirmed that Mihr astouads mairadsin e i mardkane,
“The god Mithra is incestuously born of a mortal
mother” (Elisaeus, Concerning the Vardans and the
Armenian War, Armenian original, Venice, 1864,
Book II., pp. 53 and 57). It requires a vigorous
imagination to read Virgin-birth into these state
ments. Mithraic sculptures in Europe do not even
recognise Mithra’s birth of a mortal at all, but uni
formly represent him as springing from the “ Petra
Genetrix,” or “Rock Mother.” Nor does another
ancient Armenian writer, Eznik, say anything to
support Mr. Robertson’s contention, though he tells
us that the Persians believed that the sun {Khorashef
would die {Refutation of Heresies, Arm. original,
Constantinople edition, 1873, Book II., pp. I33> T34)Nor does the ’A/7ra6avaTi<Tiu.6s, published by A. Die
terich under the title Eine Mtthrasliturgie, contain
one syllable about Mithra’s virgin-birth. The tenet,
in short, owes its origin to modern mythology.
It is not difficult to understand the genuine legend.
Mithra is represented as born of a rock, because in
Vedic Sanskrit the word asman, and in Avestic
Persian asman means not only rock but also cloud and
sky. The Sun-god does rise in the sky. Mithra’s
struggle with the bull and his slaughter of the
animal, reluctantly undertaken at Ahura Mazda’s
command, are at least once in sculpture so repre
sented as to give his countenance a look of re
luctance. This has been seized upon by some
modern opponents of Christianity. By depicting
the face only of the god, apart from the rest of the
engraving, they endeavour to support their bestowal
of the title of “Suffering Saviour” on Mithra. As
the Avestic word Gaus means “ the earth ” as well as
“ cow, ox, bull,” and as the word denoting the animal’s
“soul” (urvanj comes from the same root as does
urvara (plant, tree), the myth evidently shews forth
�20
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the fact that by piercing the earth with his dagger
like rays the Sun enables the vegetable creation to
spring forth.
Mithra was originally the god of a pastoral people
in Persia. Hence it is not surprising that a rude
sculpture depicts two herdsmen standing near the
spot where he emerges from the rock or cloud. But
our modern mythologists mistake these for shepherds,
and on this slender substructure inform us that
one of the beliefs of the Mithraites was that “this
Divine Saviour came into the world as an infant,”
and “ His first worshippers were shepherds.” Having
thus invented a legend for which they have no good
and sufficient authority, and bestowed a title borrowed
from Christianity upon Mithra, they speak of a
“ close and curious resemblance ” between their
newly-coined myth and the Gospel narrative of
Christ’s birth.
In a precisely similar way they inform us that
Mithra was “ in more senses than one the~‘ Mediator’
between man and the Most High.” The sole founda
tion for this confident assertion is Plutarch’s statement
that, in the religion of the Zoroastrians, Mithra was
called
because he stood midway between the
Good Principal, Ormazd, and the Evil Principal,
Ahriman {De Iride et Osiride, cap. 46). Our
opponents’ deduction from these premisses is doubt
less ingenious, but can scarcely be denominated
scholarly or even honest. Plutarch goes on to say
that the Persians worshipped and offered sacrifices
to both the Good and the Evil Principle, and that,
mixing a wolf’s blood with the juice of the moly (by
which he doubtless means the Z^w^-plant), they
used to pour out the libation “in a sunless place.”
As his statements are incorrect about the Zoroastrians,
they may refer to the Mithraists, who worshipped in
caves. If his worshippers really held him to be a
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
21
“ middle-man ” between Ormazd and Ahriman, we
can the better understand Mithra’s undoubted associa
tion with Cybele, Baal, and other such immoral
deities. But this hardly seems consonant with .the
statement that his religion was one “ of inward
holiness, of austere self-discipline and purity.”
We are asked to believe that there existed a
striking likeness between “the repeated lustrations
and ablutions ” of the Mithraists and Christian bap
tism, which was never repeated, and between their
sacred repast, at which the initiated ate bread and
drank water together, and the Lord’s Supper—
especially because it is conjectured that sometimes
wine was mixed with the water. It is apparently
forgotten that lustrations and sacrificial banquets are
among the most ancient and widespread rites of
nearly all Ethnic religions, and that they existed
among the Jews ages before Mithraism came into
contact with the Western world. Any resemblances
in this respect between Christianity and Mithraism
are more apparent than real, and they are far more
than counterbalanced by the vast differences between
the two religions in spirit, practice, and (as far as
anything can be ascertained of Mithraic doctrines)
belief. Even in connexion with the sacred banquet
of the Mithraists this is observable. “ In a picture
of the ‘ Banquet of the Seven Priests ’ in the Mithraic
Catacomb there are found phrases of the ‘ Eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die ’ order,” as Mr. Robertson
himself has to admit {Pagan Christs, p. 345)—a
spirit very different from the Christian. It is true
that he endeavours to remove the effect of this ad
mission by the perfectly gratuitous supposition that
these words were “ inscribed in a hostile spirit by the
hands of Christian invaders of the Mithraic retreat.”
But a cause which requires to be supported by such
baseless suppositions is self-condemned. We require
�22
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
at least a small amount of fact to prove his main
point, and we are given instead theories, conjectures,
and imagination enough to produce a new Vera
Historia of a modern Lucian.
When Ahriman shall have done his worst, accord
ing to old Persian belief (whether accepted by Mithraists or not we have no means of knowing), Mithra
will kill another marvellous bull, mingle its fat with
wine, and by giving his people this beverage will
confer immortality upon them. But of “ the burial
and resurrection of the Lord, the Mediator and
Saviour, burial in a rock tomb and resurrection from
that tomb,” we find not a word said even in the
ancient Persian writings. As we have no Mithraic
Scriptures that can be consulted, the information
which Mr. Robertson gives us on this important
subject cannot be derived from any authority of
greater weight than his own fancy. In works of
fiction this gift would be invaluable, but even in the
twentieth century we really need something more
reliable than this in support of asserted facts. It is
perhaps strange that we do not find mention of
Mithra’s return to the “ rock ” or cloud whence he, as
Sun-god, sprang. Why should not the Sun’s setting
be commemorated as well as his rising? But the
fact remains.
With regard to our Lord, it is somewhat too late
in the day to endeavour to revive the exploded
theory that He never existed, but was merely a per
sonification of the Sun. Archbishop Whately’s
Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Buonaparte,
though written to confute Hume, would equally
reduce this Solar myth hypothesis to the absurd.
On this point we need say nothing further.
The religion of Mithra which deified the Csesars,
permitted its professors to fraternise with the wor
shippers of Anaitis, Cybele, Jupiter, and Baal, and
�MITHRA AND MODERN MYTHS
23
to adore these and other deities, bathed its devotees
in bull’s blood, and feigned, if it did not practice,
ritual murder at the initiation of its neophytes, cannot
by any imaginable process of reasoning be identified
with the faith which sternly condemned each and
every one of these practices, and whose professors
died by the extremity of agonising torture rather
than sprinkle a pinch of incense on the fire burning
before Caesar’s statue. But the study of Mithrais.m
is valuable because it enables us to see what Chris
tianity would have been had it originated in the wor
ship of the Sun. The rise, progress, and downfall
of Mithraism shew us also how great is man’s felt
need of a Saviour, and how utterly insufficient to
satisfy it was such a “ pagan Christ ” as Mithra, who
was not incarnated, who neither suffered nor died nor
rose again for men, and was held to be the Inter
mediary between the Spirit of Good and the Spirit
of Evil.
v
�fl
THE “INDIAN CHRIST” OF SOME
MODERN MYTHOLOGISTS
'
T N all ages and in every land universal experience
has convinced men of the truth of the saying of
the ancient Arabian sage, “ Man is bom unto trouble
as the sparks fly upward.” Not only does sorrow fall
to men’s lot and cause them to shed more tears than
would fill the oceans, according to Buddha’s genuinely
Eastern hyperbole, but death itself awaits them, that
“ Shadow feared of man,” ready to strike them down
when they least expect it, certain to do so some day.
In varying degrees, too, the consciousness of guilt,
the reproach of conscience, the dread of punishment,
have ever pursued mankind, in many lands leading
even to the sacrifice of one’s own children in order to
atone for sin. In some savage tribes at the present
day, terror of the unseen evil powers which are sup
posed to surround them is so great that it seems to
have swallowed up all loftier ideas of religion. Even
in the most highly civilised communities of ancient
days the existence of similar beliefs is evidenced by
the discovery of numberless charms to avert the evil
eye, the extensive use of amulets, and the immense
importance attached to all kinds of omens.
Under these circumstances it was but natural that
men should seek some means of escape from so many
evils. Various methods of attaining this end were
devised. But man’s consciousness of his own sinful
ness and his inability to contend successfully with
such mighty invisible foes made him seek elsewhere
24
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
25
for a Deliverer, one who would save him, it might be
from death, it might be from sin, or at least from its
consequences here and hereafter.
If, as we have the best reason for believing, there
still lingered in the world in early ages, and some
times in much later times, some dim recollection of
the Divine Promise of the coming of One who
should bruise—or rather crush—the Serpent’s head
(Gen. iiio 15), it will not seem strange to find among
different nations the conception of someone, man or
God, who had arisen, or would yet arise, to deliver
men from sin and death. Amid his many woes, man
would naturally cling to the hope which such a
promise would inspire: and he would be led to form
some conception of the nature and work of the
looked-for Saviour. Those among us who do not
accept the Biblical statement that this promise was
actually given must at least admit that, even apart
from it, such a hope not only might spring up in
human hearts, but has actually manifested itself in a
variety of forms in different parts of the world and
among nations of various stocks.
So well established is this fact that attempts have
actually been made to prove that all our Christian
conceptions of the Saviour of mankind are either
borrowed from those of the heathen or have origi
nated in exactly the same way. A sufficient answer
to this, perhaps, is to point out that we have the
historical Christ. We have, therefore, no need of
theory to account for Him when we have the fact.
But it is none the less instructive to learn some of
the leading ideas that have come into existence
among mankind, apart from direct revelation, and to
see how in some cases men have evolved ideal
saviours from among their gods, and how, in others,
they have almost insensibly so coloured their delinea
tions of past or future, real or imaginary, human
�26
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
beings that we are thus able to understand what
kind of a Deliverer men yearned for. In studying the
most ancient records which deal with these matters,
however, we must be careful to restrain the free play
of imagination, in which not a few recent writers on
the subject have indulged, and to confine ourselves
to the recital of actual facts. Strict adherence to the
truth is the only way of learning any lessons which
these primaeval or even less ancient traditions, myths,
or forecasts have to teach us. So studied they are
full of interest and instruction. Among other things
we may learn from them how low and degraded
human ideas often are, and how far short of the
Divine reality men’s highest hopes have fallen.
One of the ideal “ Saviours ” who are still adored
in India is Krishna. At the present time in that
country an attempt is being made to represent him
to the people as an Indian Christ, so to speak. The
object of this is to prevent the spread of Christianity
by substituting an indigenous deity for a foreign
object of worship. A work styled The Imitation of
Krishna by its very name shews this only too clearly.
Even in England it has recently been asserted that
there exists such a marvellous likeness between the
story of Krishna and the Gospel accounts of our
Lord’s life and work that the Indian god is worthy of
being styled a “ Pagan Christ.” People assure us
that the Gospel narrative is largely borrowed from
the Indian myth, and that detail after detail of the
latter is servilely reproduced in the New Testament
and credulously accepted by Christians as a genuine
fact of history. Yet it is acknowledged by even
writers of the modern mythological school, if we may
so term them, that the legends regarding Krishna
which are to be found in circulation in Indian litera
ture are of very late date. No one can tell exactly
when these books were composed, but the earliest
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
27
of them are at the very least several hundreds
of years later than the composition of the Gospels.
On this point there is no controversy among scholars.
One of the modern mythologists tries to get over
this difficulty by saying, “ The lateness of the
Puranic stories in literary form is no argument
against their antiquity ” (Mr. Vivian Phelips, The
Churches and Modern Thought, 2nd ed., p. 137). We
leave others to admire the logic here displayed, merely
observing that it just as well that we Christians have
not to ask people to accept the records of Christ’s
life upon such a slender foundation. How the first
disciples of Christ in Palestine could possibly copy
Indian myths ages before they had come into exist
ence, or at least before we have even the very slightest^
evidence of their having been invented, is a puzzle to
the ordinary mind. It requires a great development
of the credulity so conspicuous in the writings of our
“ friends on the other side ” to enable anyone to
accept such a theory. The difficulty is still further
increased when we come to consider the legends
about Krishna actually current among his devotees.
For, as we shall see, there is scarcely the faintest
resemblance between them and the Gospel narrative.
But were the resemblance a thousand times as
great as it is, since there is no doubt which of the
two accounts is far the earlier, it would be clear to
most men that the borrowing, if borrowing there be,
must have been from the earlier narrative, to wit the
Christian, and not conversely.
Another writer—a lady this time—gravely invites
us to believe that “ The ideal which Jesus Christ held
up to His followers is essentially the same as that
which Krishna proposed to Arjuna” in the Bhagavad
Gita. “ The Gospel (!) of Krishna and the Gospel of
Christ have in fact the same ultimate aim, to open
to the human soul a way of escape from the dualism
�28
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of matter and spirit in which humanity is at present
involved ” {Hibbert Journal, October, 1907).
We leave it to anyone who has even a very slight
acquaintance with the New Testament to judge
whether this account of the object of Christ’s Gospel
is in any imaginable sense correct. Mr. Vivian
Phelips tells that Krishna was “ born of a virgin,
Devaki ”: and he assures his credulous readers that,
ere Christ was born,“ the whole world had already
been conversant for ages past with stories of suffering
Saviours, similar in all essentials to the Gospel narra
tives” {op. cit. p. 161). Whether this be so or not
we shall soon see as far as Krishna is concerned,
apart altogether from the lateness of the myth.
Some study of the original authorities from which
sober students must draw all their information re
garding Krishna—the tenth Book of the Bhagavata
Purana, the fifth Book of the Vishnu Purana, the
Harivamsa, the Mahabharata, and the Bhagavad
Gita,—compels us with reluctance to come to the
conclusion that this gentleman’s long account of
Krishna is certainly not drawn from these, the only
genuine authorities on the- subject. Can it be that
the modern mythologist is in reality a romancer,
appealing to his imagination for his “ facts ” ? Even
the totally unreliable Indian myths about Krishna,
comparatively modern though they are, do not sup
port at all adequately many of the statements made
by such writers. If a writer on the subject has really
lived in India for years, he should at least know the
notorious Prem Sagar, the Hindi version of the part
of the Bhagavata Purana which deals with Krishna.
In it we are informed that Devaki, Krishna’s mother,
so far from being a virgin at his conception, had
already before that borne seven children to her hus
band, Wasudeva {Prem Sagar, chap. iii.). What re
liance therefore can be placed upon a writer who
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
29
asserts that Krishna’s Virgin-birth is a distinctive
feature in the legend ?
He proceeds, however, to tell us that “ The ancient
hymns of the Rig-Veda furnish the germs of those
Sun-myths which tell of the death, resurrection, and
ascension of a Virgin-born Saviour” (op.cit., p. 141).
The errors in this sentence are almost as numerous
as the words. Whatever else Krishna may be, he
assuredly is not a “ sun-myth,” any more than he is
a “suffering Saviour.” His name, which signifies
“the Black,” probably shews that he was originally
a deity worshipped by the aboriginal inhabitants of
India, and borrowed from them by their Aryan
conquerors. No mention at all of Krishna is to be
found in the Rig- Veda. As in few countries is the
sun “ black,” we find some difficulty in believing that
he was ever a Sun-god, though a trifle like this does
not seriously discourage the credulity of our modern
mythologists. We may imagine them saying, “Why
should not the sun be black ? He is black—during
an eclipse.” We present them with this argument
for all it is worth. It is at least more logical than the
doctrine—inculcated by Mr. Vivian Phelips, not by
the Hindus—that Devaki was a virgin after bearing
her husband seven children.
The Greek writer Megasthenes tells us that a deity,
whom he identifies with Herakles (Hercules), was
worshipped near Methora (Mathura, the present
Mattra) in his own time (306-298 B.C.). Possibly
this was Krishna. If so, this is the first mention we
find of him anywhere. The Chandogya Upanishad
(III., § 17, 6) seems to imply that he was a student
of philosophy. Upon this Sir Alfred Lyall’s {Asiatic
Studies, R.P.A. reprint, p. 21) suggestion that possi
bly he was a religious reformer is based. The earlier
part of the Mahabharata depicts him as a warriorking. Krishna can hardly have played all these
�30
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
parts, and it is probable that he played none of
them. His character and conduct, as depicted for us
in the books most prized by his worshippers, often in
passages unfit for translation, are best described by
saying that they are worthy of the name which
he bears, taking its meaning in a moral sense. His
exploits are evidently fabulous, but, as related in
these books, they consisted mainly in indiscriminate
adultery, varied with a good deal of murder. He is
said to have had eight specially beautiful wives of his
own, besides over 16,000 others, and by them he had
a family of 180,000 sons, all of whom finally killed
one another, or were murdered by their father. It is
a comfort to know that only his eight principal wives
were burnt alive on his funeral pyre, in accordance
with the merciful custom of the Hindus.
Nowhere but in India, where history and fable are
regarded as one and the same thing (itihasaj, would
all this be deemed historical. But, if it be not so,
we have no knowledge of the real Krishna, if he ever
existed. In that famous philosophical poem the
Bhagavad Gita, the author of the work has chosen
to put his own ideas into Krishna’s mouth, much
as if Lucretius had selected Hercules or Bacchus or
some other popular deity as his own mouthpiece, or
just as people nowadays use Mrs. Partington’s name
when they wish to perpetrate a mildly silly joke.
This is not the place to venture upon an account
of the philosophy taught in the poem we have men
tioned. Suffice it to say that in it Krishna, true
to his character as a warrior, disguising himself, acts
as the hero Arjuna’s charioteer, and urges the latter
to overcome his great reluctance to shed the blood
of his relatives. Krishna reminds him that one
should always perform the duties imposed upon him
by his caste. Hence, he argues, since Arjuna belongs
to the Kshattriya or warrior caste, he must fight and
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
31
kill people (Bhag. Gita, Bks. Ill,, 35 ; VIII. 7 ; XL, 33,
34; XVIII., 43, 48). Killing is no murder, he is
assured, because of the transmigration of souls
(Bk. II., 18-22). Krishna argues that, in accordance
with the eclectic philosophy which he teaches, any
one who is possessed of true knowledge (Jndna}
thereby escapes all the evil consequences of sin
(Bk. IV., 36, 37). Such teaching lays the axe at the;
root of the tree of all morality. A modern Hindu
writer, well aware that in the Puranas Krishna is the
impersonation of almost every vice, thus defends and
endeavours to glorify his conduct. “ The being,” he
writes, “ who is equal in virtue as well as in vice,
is to us a grander being than the extremely virtuous
man. . . . Conceive a man who is trying his utmost
to fly from vice to its opposite pole, virtue ; imagine
also a being to whom heat and cold, virtue and vice
are the same, and you will find that the latter is
infinitely superior to the former” (Mulopadhaya,
Imitation of Krishna^ preface, pp. 2, 3). A cause
which requires such reasoning to support it is of
course lost. But what are we to think of those who
venture to compare Krishna with Christ, and who
tell us that “ the Gospel of Krishna and the Gospel
of Christ have, in fact, the same ultimate aim ” ?
Some tell us that the worshippers of Krishna hold
that devotion to him is the means of salvation, and
that this is the same as our Biblical doctrine of
Justification by Faith. But this statement is com
pleted by those who first made it by adding that,
as no such doctrine of devotion (bhakti} is found
elsewhere in Hinduism, it must have been borrowed
from Christianity. This is, no doubt, possible. Yet
a good principle is liable to abuse, and its evil effects
will then be in proportion to its original goodness.
The results of “ devotion ” to Krishna are among the
most pernicious conceivable. All who are aware of
�32
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the conduct of the so-called Vallabhacharyas or sect
of the Maharajas ” and their practice of offering
“ body, mind, and property ” (tan, man, dhan) to their
chiefs, whom they regard as incarnations of Krishna,
will readily admit this. Cases heard before the
High Court at Bombay have revealed almost in
credible vileness and cruelty thereby produced. Yet
Krishna is the deity most honoured in India to-day.
The fabulous history of Krishna, as related es
pecially in the Vishnu Purana, is too long to repeat
here in detail, but we must give an outline of it.
Kansa, who was an incarnation of the demon
Kalanemi, slew the first six of his cousin Devakl’s
children as soon as they were born. Vishnu was
incarnate in the eighth, Krishna, who was black.
Failing in his attempt to find and kill him too, Kansa,
to whom it had been foretold that the child would ulti
mately cause his death, imprisoned Krishna’s parents,
Vasudeva and Devaki, and ordered the murder of
every pious man and every boy of unusual vigour.
Besides many improper exploits which are frankly
dirty and indecent, Krishna on one occasion held up
the mountain Govardhana on the tip of one of his
fingers for seven days to shelter some herdsmen from
a storm. He also slew a demon-bull and some ser
pents of considerable size. Mounted on the wonder
ful bird Garuda, he once went up to the sky to restore
her lost ear-rings to the goddess Aditi. On one
occasion he hospitably entertained a rishi. But
unfortunately he omitted, through mere inadvertence,
to wipe away some fragments of food which had
fallen on the holy man’s foot. Enraged at this want
of respect, the latter declared that his host would be
killed by an arrow in the foot. This came to pass
through an accident, since a hunter one day mistook
the god’s foot for a deer and shot his arrow into it.
Instead of punishing him, Krishna sent him up to
�THE “INDIAN CHRIST
33
the sky in a celestial chariot. Dying of his wound,
Krishna was burnt by Arjuna on a funeral pyre,
together with eight of his unfortunate wives. His
parents afterwards burnt themselves alive through
grief.
This is the legend from which some of our
modern sages, with an equal disregard of chronology,
probability, history, and common sense, would have
us believe that the Gospel narrative is derived I
The fact is that those who invented the myths
relating to Krishna “ went upon the analogy of their
own experience” in regard to such questions as
ethical decency and the lack of moral purpose which
is so conspicuous in his character. They never
intended him “to be a model, or a reforming ruler
and teacher of mankind” (Sir Alfred Lyall, op. cit.y
pp. 31, 32). In one sense he is considered by his
worshippers to be a “ Divine Saviour,” not, however,
one who saves “ his people from their sins ” like our
Lord (Matt. i. 21), but one who enables them to live
in the unchecked perpetration of their cherished sins,
which is not quite the same thing. Unfortunately
Krishna has become perhaps the most influential of
the deities now worshipped in India, though it has
well been said by a man of great experience of these
things in that land : “ The stories related of Krishna’s
life do more than anything else to destroy the morals
and corrupt the imagination of the Hindu youth.”
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA AND
MODERN MYTHOLOGY
TA ^E have seen that Mithra is the Sun-god and
* V was acknowledged by Mithraists to be such.
Krishna may or may not have existed as a human
being, but certainly had no connection with any
Solar myth. A third great Oriental hero, Buddha,
was undoubtedly a real man. Attempts to represent
him as a Solar myth may be held to have completely
broken down since the discovery of the Emperor
Asoka’s inscriptions, in one of which Buddha’s birth
place is indicated and the date of his birth indirectly
given. This inscription, though dating about three
hundred years after Buddha’s1 birth, is the earliest
extant document on the subject. Contrast this with
the well ascertained date of the composition of our
Gospels, and the fact that the earliest of St. Paul’s
Epistles can be proved to have been written within
twenty-five years of the Crucifixion. This will en
able the reader to judge for himself of the relative
reliability of Buddhist and Christian documents.
Asoka’s Inscriptions, however, tell us practically
nothing of Buddha’s history except the fact that he
was born in the Lumbini Grove near Taullhwa (in
Nipal), apparently about 557 B.C., and died about
B.c. 477, and that he uttered certain discourses,
none of the names of which correspond with any
part of the present Buddhist Canon, whether we
take that of the Northern or that of the Southern
1 Asoka reigned about 257-220, B.c.
34
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
35
Buddhists. Asoka in many places, however, caused
what we may style the Buddhist1 creed to be in
scribed on rocks, and this agrees with what the Pali
books of the “Three Baskets” {Tipitakani) give us
as the summary of his teaching. There can be
no doubt, therefore, what this was, and little un
certainty is now felt that from the Pali books we can
ascertain with fair accuracy the main details of his
life and a tolerably correct idea of his character and
work. We are able, therefore, to learn what was
believed about him at least some few hundred years
after his birth, and to distinguish from this the multi
farious legends contained in much later books. It is
well to point out this in order to prevent an objec
tion that our distinction between the historical and
the legendary is arbitrary. There may be something
mythical even in what scholars, on the authority of
the oldest Buddhist Scriptures, now generally regard
as probably correct in the main; but there can be no
doubt that what can be proved on documentary
evidence to be later additions to the narrative are
legendary. Yet some of our modern mythologists
do not, as we shall see, scruple to invent and add to
them certain mythical details not found even in the
latest and most unreliable Buddhist fables. Modern
European scholars have written many admirable
works on Buddha’s life and teaching, and there is,
therefore, absolutely no excuse for any writer of the
present day who ventures to draw either on his
imagination for his statements, or upon such accounts
as those given many years ago by St. Hilaire, or
again by late Sanskrit, Tibetan, or Chinese books of
no authority.
1 This may be thus translated :—
“Whatever conditions are sprung from a cause,
The cause of them the Tathagato
Has told, and what is their end :
Thus spake the Great Monk.”
�36
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
We are not surprised that Mr. Blatchford should
inform us that the account of our Lord’s Virgin
birth was borrowed from Buddhism {God and My
Neighbour: see my criticism of his statements in
the Clarion for April 8th, 1904), and that Buddha
was a Solar myth. But it is somewhat strange to
find such a man as Mr. Vivian Phelips following so
innocently in his footsteps. Yet the latter tells us
that Buddha was miraculously conceived by his
mother Maya, that “he1 descended into hell, he
ascended into heaven ... he is to come upon the
earth in the latter days to restore the world to order
and happiness. He is to be judge of the dead. . . .
According to Buddha the motive of all our actions
should be pity, or love for our neighbour . . . Finally,
we should note that Buddha aimed to establish a
‘ Kingdom of Heaven ’ {Dharmachakra^h How any
one can venture to palm off the “Kingdom of
Heaven ” upon us as the translation of a word which
means “the wheel of the Law,” and connotes the
later Buddhist idea that Buddha claimed universal
dominion on earth, passes comprehension. But it
must be admitted that this last assertion is quite as
correct as the others we have quoted in the above
extracts.
As his authority for Buddha’s miraculous birth,
Mr. Phelips mentions1 Professor Rhys Davids’ state
2
ment that “ Csoma Korosi {Asiatic Researches, xx.
299) refers in a distant way to a belief of the later
Mongol Buddhists that Maya was a virgin : but this
has not been confirmed.” Professor Rhys Davids
1 The Churches of Modern Thought, pp. 124 sqq.
2 His other authorities, he tells us, are Beal’s Romantic History of
Buddha, Bunsen’s Angel Messiah, and a report mentioned by Jerome
{Contra Jovianum, Lib. I.). It is almost incredible that he should
accept such books as authorities for the existence of the dogma and
expect others also to do so.
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
37
himself, on the authority of Buddhist works, says
that Maya was “about the forty-fifth year of her
age ” when “ she promised her husband a son ”
(Buddhism, S.P.C.K., ist ed., p. 26). As she was
doubtless married, at latest, when about twelve years
old, and had then been living with her husband
Suddhodana for some thirty-three years, it is hardly
necessary to consider the question of Buddha’s
“ Virgin-birth ” any further. Her death occurred
seven days after her son was born. All this is neither
miraculous nor at all similar to the Gospel narrative.
In my Noble Eightfold Path, I have given an
Appendix containing the earliest Pali and Sanskrit
accounts of the birth of Buddha (pp. 202-6). It is
there shewn that the earliest Pali books of the
Buddhist Canon give absolutely no hint whatever
of Mayas virginity, and mention nothing miracu
lous in Buddha’s conception. In much later Pali
works as for instance in the introduction to the
Jatakas, we find a dream of Maya’s to the effect that
she was carried away to the Himalayas, and that
there a great white elephant entered her side. This
is related only as a dream, not as a reality, and wise
men are called together by her husband to explain
what such a singular dream means. They say that
the meaning is that her son will be either a great
king or an enlightened sage (a “ Buddha ”). But
even here there is no hint of virginity or of a super
natural birth. The first indication of any such idea
is found in a Sanskrit poem by Asvaghosha entitled
the Buddha-Carita (Bk. I., vv. 17, 18). Professor
Cowell thinks that this romance may possibly date
from the first century of the Christian era. The
Professor says, “ Whether he (Asvaghosha) could be
the contemporary and spiritual adviser of Kanishka
in the first century A.D. is not yet proved, though it
appears very probable; but at any rate his Buddha-
�38
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Carita seems to have been translated .into Chinese
early in the fifth century. This must imply that it
enjoyed a great reputation among the Buddhists of
India, and justifies our fixing the date of its com
position at least one or two centuries earlier” (Intro
duction to Buddha-Carita, p. v.). Hence we see that
something marvellous in Buddha’s conception was
believed by the Indian Buddhists perhaps as early
as three hundred years after our Lord’s time, possibly
even in the first century. But what was it which
this flowery poem states on the subject ? It boldly
accepts as a fact of actual occurrence what the
Introduction to the Jataka fables mentions only as a
dream, viz. that the future Buddha in the form of
an elephant entered his mother’s womb. Asvaghosha
seems to indicate his belief in Maya’s virginity also
by saying that Suddhodana, “ Having gained her,
often mastered desire, ever woman’s practice, and
darkness (or anger) then too [he mastered], not at
all by night having approached the brilliant moon
plant.”
If this is what he means, he very possibly got the idea
from Christian accounts of our Lord’s birth, for there
is no doubt that Christian preachers reached the
western coast of India even in Apostolic times. (See
Geo. Smith, The Conversion of India, pp. 8 and 9.)
The idea is certainly completely foreign to earlier
Buddhism, which saw nothing marvellous or super
natural in Buddha’s conception and birth. Asva
ghosha proceeds to relate many strange things about
Buddha, who, he tells us, after being born from
Maya’s left side, immediately walked and spoke,
proclaiming his own greatness. Later Buddhist
works are full of the most absurd tales about his
conduct then and afterwards. For instance, the
Mahavaggo informs us that, very shortly after his
“enlightenment” under the Bo-tree, Buddha visited
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
39
a community of one thousand Jatilas, or ascetics with
matted locks, near Uruvela. He obtained permission
to spend the night in the room where they kept their
sacred fire burning. There he found “ a savage
serpent-king of great magical power, a dreadfully
venomous serpent,” who, angered at his intrusion,
‘‘sent forth fire. And the Worshipful One (Buddha),
turning his own body into fire, sent forth flames.”
Having thus overcome the serpent, Buddha next
morning threw him into his alms-bowl and exhibited
him to the chief of the monks. One night Buddha
paid a visit to the Tavatimsa heaven to pluck a
flower. He created five hundred vessels with fire in
them for the Jatilas to warm themselves at on a
winter night when they had bathed. During an
inundation, Buddha made the water in one place
recede, and then he “walked about in the midst of
the water on a dust-covered spot.” In all he per
formed 3,500 miracles, and thereby converted all the
Jatilas (Mahavaggo, i., 15-20). We mention these as
a specimen of the more sober marvels attributed to
Buddha, in order that the contrast between his
miracles and those of our Lord may be clear to
everyone.
Some have tried to prove that the Lalita- Vistara,
a famous Sanskrit romance about Buddha’s early life,
was in existence shortly after the beginning of the
Christian era. These attempts have failed, though
we know that such books existed as early as the sixth
century after Christ. But, even were it proved that
they had existed in much earlier days, how is it
possible for any perverse ingenuity to persuade any
reasonable human being that the writers of the Gos
pels could in any way have drawn from such silly
tales the marvellous picture of Christ, “Who went
about doing good,” which we find in the New Testa
ment ? It is true that some of the absurdities in the
�"I.... '
40
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Apocryphal Gospels may have a Buddhistic origin, as
for instance the fable in the Arabic Gospel of the
Infancy that our Lord spoke when an infant in the
cradle, which story is reproduced in the Qur’an. But
the spirit which produced such compositions is dia
metrically opposed to that to which our New Testa
ment writings are due. This very fact proves that
the latter are not the product of the mythic tendency
as are the former. The contrast in tone and character
is too complete to permit of the hypothesis that the
true and the false have the same origin. John Stuart
Mill tells us that the Gospel accounts of Christ’s life
must be historical, for no poet or dramatist ever lived
who could have “imagined the life and character re
vealed in the Gospels.” Professor Harnack, another
great thinker, and one whose testimony cannot be
suspected of being influenced in favour of orthodox
Christianity, in his exhaustive study of early Christian
literature, says, “ There was a time . . . when people
fancied themselves obliged to consider the most
ancient Christian literature, inclusive of the New
Testament, a mass of deceits and falsifications.
That time has passed away. . . . The oldest liter
ature of the Church is in its main points, and in most
of its details, treated in a literary-historical way, truth
ful and reliable” {Die Chronologie der altchristlichen
Litteratur, Vol. I., pp. viii. and ix.). So that, were the
resemblances to be found in Buddhist myths ten times
as great as they really are, the conclusions of the
opponents of Christianity would still be devoid of any
real foundation.
But let us see what is really taught about Buddha
in the earliest and most reliable Buddhist works.
His youth was passed in Kapilavastu and its
neighbourhood. He resided with Suddhodana, his
father, during the winter, summer, and the rainy
season each year in one or another of the three country
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
4i
seats which a later tradition terms royal “ palaces.”
He married early in accordance with Indian custom.
Only one of his wives is mentioned by name, though
accounts differ as to what her name was. The
Buddhavamso represents him as stating that he had
40,000 wives (ch. xxvi, 15), and later accounts double
this number, but these may be regarded as grossly
exaggerated. The only son of his who is mentioned
is Rahulo, who was born when Buddha—or, as he was
.then called, Siddhartha—was twenty-nine years of
age. Buddha then deserted his wife and child and
.became an anchoret, retiring from all the world’s
[fickle joys in order to find peace of mind through
'self-torture. He became the disciple of one devotee
after another, and, dissatisfied with them, almost
killed himself by his asceticism. After seven years’
vain effort to obtain “the supreme, best state of
calm,” he saw the futility of this method, and began
to take food in strict moderation.
; One night he sat meditating near Uruvela under a
sacred tree, the pipaly since known as the “ Bo-tree.”
His abstraction became intense, and he finally
imagined that he had reached Omniscience (sambodhi)
and had discovered the cause and cure of all human
suffering. He then said of himself, “ I have over
come all foes ; I am all-wise; I am free from stains
in every way; I have left everything, and have
obtained emancipation through the destruction of
desire. Having myself gained Knowledge, whom
should I call my master ? I have no teacher : no one
is equal to me; in the world of men and of Gods no
being is like me. ... I am the highest teacher. I
alone am the absolute omniscient one (sambuddho) :
I have gained coolness” (by the extinction of all pas
sions), “ and have obtained Nirvana. To found the
kingdom of the law (dhammo) I go to the city of the
Kasis (Banaras) : I will beat the drum of immortality
�42
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
in the darkness of this world.” By “immortality”
(amata) he meant Nirvana. It is called deathlessness
because, as there is no existence in it, there can be
no dying. It differs therefore in toto from what we
mean by immortality.
Buddha was so far from claiming to be a Divine
Incarnation that he never in any way even acknow
ledged the existence of a Creator of the universe. He
spoke of the devas or gods of popular belief as needing
to accept his philosophy in order to escape from the
misery of existence.
As soon as he had evolved his philosophy, he
desired to teach it to others. Later accounts tell us
that “ Maro ” endeavoured to persuade and even to
frighten him into becoming annihilated (entering
Nirvana) at once, so as to prevent him from passing
on to others the secret of escape from the misery of
existence. Maro caused all kinds of terrible con
vulsions in Nature in order to alarm Buddha, but in
vain. “ A thousand appalling meteors fell; clouds
and darkness prevailed. Even this earth, with the
oceans and mountains it contains, though it is
unconscious, quaked like a conscious being—like a
fond bride when forcibly torn from her bridegroom—
like the festoons of a vine shaking under the blasts of
a whirlwind. The ocean rose under the vibration of
this earthquake; rivers flowed back towards their
sources; peaks of lofty mountains, where countless
trees had grown for ages, rolled crumbling to the earth;
a fierce storm howled all around; the roar of the con
cussion became terrific ; the very sun enveloped itself
in awful darkness, and a host of headless spirits filled
the air” (Prof. Rhys Davids’ Buddhism, S.P.C.K.,
PP- 36, 37). Some people have compared this fancy
sketch with the Gospel account of the Temptation of
our Lord. Suffice it to say that Maro is not Satan,
as the latter has no place in Buddhism, that the object
�THE HISTORICAL BUDDHA
43
of the trial was quite different in the two cases,
and that the details bear no resemblance to one
another.
Buddha’s whole system of philosophy differed
widely from the doctrines of Christianity. “ His
object was to get rid of an existence without God and
without hope,” which he felt to be all the more
terrible because he held that the death of the body
does not end the consequences of one’s conduct here.
He believed that life was devoid of all purpose. All
its happiness seemed to him worse than illusory, but
“ all that causes suffering—birth, sickness, death,
separation from what is dear to us, and union with
what is hateful ”—remained. “ And this stream of
misery and tears extends backwards to all eternity . . .
and stretches forward to all the eternities. This iswhat
is implied in the ceaseless passing of all beings . . .
into life, until they die, and again from death, by
means of repeated births, into a new existence full
of suffering” (Prof. Grau, The Goal of the Human
Race, pp. 145-7).
He spent the rest of his life after attaining Buddhahood in travelling about the country, teaching his
gloomy philosophy. Many disciples, thousands of
them, joined him, principally from the titled and
wealthy to whom he almost exclusively addressed
himself. At length, at the age of eighty years, he
died through some error of diet, and then, in the
opinion of himself and his followers, became extinct.
His last words addressed to the monks who formed
his Sangho or Community were these: “ Come now,
mendicants, I bid you farewell. Compounds are
subject to dissolution. Succeed through diligence”
(Mahaparinibbana-Suttam, p. 61J
He taught the doctrine of transmigration of char
acter and the results of conduct {Karma), and also
the non-existence of the human soul, According
�44
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
to him, the motive for all conduct should be the
attainment of Nirvana, and thus of release from all
“ passions,” good or bad, and ultimate extinction.
The idea that “he is to be judge of the dead,” that
“he descended into hell, he ascended into heaven,
he is to come upon the earth in the latter days to
restore the world to order and happiness,” is abso
lutely contrary to Buddhism, and is due either to
an unaccountable mistake or to the romantic imagi
nation of a modern English mythologist. Buddhists,
who believe that before their teacher’s birth there
were many other Buddhas, look for the coming of
still more, and especially for one who is to be called
Metteyo. But they are bound to believe that the
historical Siddhartha or Gotamo Buddha is extinct,
and certainly, therefore, cannot expect his return to
earth.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS,
AND OSIRIS
A LL classical scholars are aware of the existence
of an ancient myth, which, in slightly different
forms, once prevailed throughout Western Asia,
Egypt, Italy and Greece, and which in general set
forth in parabolical language the death of vegetation
in winter and its coming to life again in spring. In
the Hellenic world and in Italy people told how the
Ruler of Hades, or Orcus, carried off to the realms
below Persephone or Proserpina, the fair daughter
of the Earth- or Corn-goddess, Demeter or Ceres,
fend how she was allowed periodically to return to
the surface again and spend some time with her
mother, ere going back once more to the domain of
the dead. In Egypt we have the myth of Osiris, in
Mesopotamia and Syria that of Adonis, in Phrygia
that of Attis (also called Atys or Attin). A slightly
varied Phrygian fable styles the demigod Agdistis.
It has occurred to the fertile imaginations of certain
modern writers that perhaps they could successfully
practise upon the credulity and ignorance of “the
man in the street,” and so induce him to believe that
the doctrine of the Resurrection of our Lord Jesus
Christ was but another form of this ancient Nature
legend. Of course, all who have studied the evidence
for our Lord’s Resurrection know that this evidence
is quite unanswerable. Strauss, Renan and countless
other opponents, in modern as well as in early
Christian times, have endeavoured to explain away
45
�46
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the recorded facts of the case, and always in vain.
It has not been necessary for Christians to answer
these attacks, for one assailant has overthrown
another and shewn how hopeless his theory was.
Professor Orr’s recent book on the subject {The
Resurrection of Jesus') carefully weighs each hostile
theory and concisely gives the evidence which
opponents have, during eighteen hundred years,
entirely failed to shake, or even to account for
unless by confessing it to be true. It is not our
intention to deal with the proof of the doctrine of
Christ’s Resurrection at present, but rather to examine
the narratives relating to Adonis, Attis, and Osiris,
in order to see whether these various forms of the
Nature-myth really bear such a striking resemblance
to the Gospel history as has been loudly asserted of
late.
The name “Adonis” is really due to an error of
the Greeks. Hearing the Oriental women “weeping
for Tammuz” and lamenting aloud, as at the inter
ment of a king, “Adon!” (“My lord”: cf. the
Hebrew of Jer. xxii. 18, and xxxiv. 5, also Ezek.
viii. 14), they fancied that this, instead of being a
title, was the name of the deceased. But his real
name was Tammuz in Hebrew and Syriac, and was
derived from the Accadian Dumu-zi, “ Son of Life,”
probably a contraction for Dumu-zi-apsu, “ Son of the
Life (Spirit) of the Deep” (Sayce). Tammuz was
regarded as the offspring of Ea, the god of the
ocean. Another of his sons was Asari, whose wor
ship was carried to Egypt by its early Semitic
conquerors. This latter deity became known in
Greek as Osiris. Both Tammuz and he were origin
ally Sungods, though afterwards in some measure
identified with the fruits of the earth. It is not at
all strange, therefore, to find that at a later time in
Phoenicia, Osiris and Tammuz were in a measure
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 47
confounded with one another, and their myths in
some degree held to be but varied forms of one and
the same legend or allegory.
The Greek form of the tale of Adonis is well
known, and it has been frequently the theme of
poetry in many tongues. He was the lover of the
goddess Aphrodite, he was slain by the tusk of a wild
boar, and the goddess lamented him yearly, and
caused a flower to spring from his blood (cf. Ovid,
“ Metamorphoses,” Lib. x., 503-fin.). Another form
of the story informs us that Adonis was son of an
Assyrian king Theias and his own daughter Smyrna,
and that, when the child was born, Aphrodite handed
him over to Persephone to be reared. When Aphro
dite thought that the time had come for him . to
return to her, Persephone refused to restore him.
Zeus was then appealed to, and asked to decide with
whom Adonis should dwell. He decreed that a third
part of each year should be spent with each of the
rival goddesses in turn, the remaining third being at
Adonis’ own disposal. Adonis, however, devoted this
period also to Aphrodite. He was afterwards killed
by a boar while hunting, as has already been men
tioned (Apollodorus, Lib. iii., cap. 14, §.3-4). This
writer tells us nothing whatever of Adonis’ return to
life, though it may perhaps be inferred that something
of the kind was implied by the alternate visits to
Aphrodite and to the Queen of Hades. But, if so,
these occurred rather before than after his death. In the
previous version of the myth, the nearest approach to
a return to life is the growth of a flower from his blood.
If we may judge from the classical forms of the
legend, lamentation for the death of Adonis long
preceded the establishment of any festival in honour
of his return to the bosom of Aphrodite. But in
much later times in Rome and elsewhere the festival
of the “ Adonia” was celebrated in June, at the time
�MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of the summer solstice, with alternate wailings and
rejoicings. According to Macrobius {Saturn. i., 21,
vide Sayce, Religions of Egypt and Assyria, and
Hibbert Lectures, p. 231), the Syrians explained the
boar’s tusk, with which Adonis was slain, as denoting
the cold and gloom of winter, and said that his return
to earth implied his “ victory over the first six zodia
cal signs, along with the lengthening daylight.” The
reference to the signs of the zodiac shews that Adonis
was still known to have originally been the Sungod,
though then identified with the fertility of the soil,
which was regarded as largely due to his generative
influence. Professor Sayce holds that the Syrian
custom of rejoicing immediately after the “ wailing
for Tammuz” was introduced from Egypt, where the
idea of Osiris’ continued life after death had long
been entertained. Lucian’s account of the Syrian
festival supports this supposition {De Syria Dea,
cap. vii.). From very ancient times, as we learn
from the Assyrian poem of the “ Descent of Ishtar
to Hades,” it was believed in Accad that Ishtar, or
Ashtoreth, who in Greece was styled Aphrodite, had
gone down to the lower world “ in search of the healing
waters which should restore to life her bridegroom,
Tammuz.” Apparently she succeeded, but the poem
says absolutely nothing of any return to life on the
part of the dead god. (See the original text in Rawlin
son’s Inscriptions of Western Asia, vol. iv., plate 31.)
The “ wailing for Tammuz” took place in different
countries at different seasons of the year. Accad
and Babylonia generally recognised the fierce summer
heat as his deadly foe, Phoenicia the cold of
winter. “If there was another feast in which grief
gave place to joy at his restoration to life, it was
separate from that which celebrated his death, and
must have taken place at a different time of the
year.” In the West, on the other hand, “ he ceased to
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 49
be the Sungod of spring and became the Sungod of
summer. Winter, and not summer, was the enemy
who had slain the god” (Sayce, Hibbert Lectures, pp.
231, 232). Hence, when Julian the Apostate entered
Antioch in triumph in October, A.D. 362, the wailing
.Over Adonis’ death which he then found going on must
have seemed to him full of ill omen (Am. Marcellinus,
Lib., xxii., 9., 15).
The fact that this lamentation for Tammuz was
observed at different seasons of the year in different
countries, in accordance with the known variety of their
(climate, agrees with all other facts of the case, and
proves that his worshippers did not fall into the
error of imagining that they were weeping for a
human “ Saviour ” or Deliverer who had been slain.
They by no means regarded Tammuz as a Saviour,
but well understood that their religious rites had
reference to an annual occurrence in Nature. That
this was recognised is clear from the explanations of
it which Roman and Greek authors give on their
authority, and also from the loathsomely licentious
practices then observed in honour of the god. “It
is possible, though not yet proved, that in Tammuz
two deities have been combined together, the Sungod
and the vegetation of the spring which the young Sun
of the year brings into existence ” (Sayce, Religions
of Egypt and Babylonia, p. 350). The same process
of combination or of reflection was pursued in the
case of Osiris also, as we shall see presently. Ulti
mately, as Marcellinus shews (Lib. xix., 1., 11, and
Lib. xxii., 9., 15), it was held that the reaping of the
corn and the dying down of vegetation at the onset
of winter was what was really denoted by Tammuz’
death. Thus the god became identified not so much
with vegetation itself as with the productive- or
generative power in Nature which caused the crops
to grow out of the bosom of the earth. As the
�5o
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
character of Tammuz, her “lover,” underwent this
change, so Ishtar herself came to express a con
ception altogether different from that which she at
first represented. She was originally “ the spirit of
the evening star ” (Sayce, op. cit., p. 340), as we learn
from her name, which, in its primary Accadian
form Gis-dar, meant “bright lady.” (It occurs so
written in the Preface to Hammurabi’s Laws, column
iii., line 54, in Harper’s edition of the original text.)
But when Adonis became the vivifying power which
produces vegetation, Ishtar was regarded as the
Earth fertilised thereby, very much as was the case
with Isis in Egypt.
It is impossible for us to describe the abominably
immoral practices which resulted from this conception,
and which were everywhere inseparably connected
with the worship of Adonis and Aphrodite, otherwise
styled Tammuz and Ishtar. Not only at Babylon in
the temple of the goddess whom Herodotus (Lib. i.,
199) terms Mylitta, but also wherever the productive
powers of Nature were deified—in Phrygia, in Cyprus,
throughout heathen Palestine, in Syria, in India,
and in many other lands—these abominations were
for ages continued as religious rites. They were
supposed to give pleasure to the deities in whose
honour they were practised, to promote the fertility
of the soil, and to acquire merit for the unspeakably
degraded beings who practised them.
Lucian, or the author of the book On the Syrian
Goddess generally ascribed to him, after giving us an
account of the shameful rite performed at Byblos
(Gebal) in honour of Aphrodite each year, tells us that,
the very day after that on which the lamentation for
Adonis’ death took place, an announcement was
made that he was alive fDe Syria Dea, cap. 6).
This is one of the comparatively few instances in
which any distinct mention is found of the belief
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 51
that he did return to life, except, indeed, in the pages
of Christian writers of antiquity. The latter not
unfrequently apply distinctively Christian phrase
ology to heathen ideas, by the use, for example, of
such words as “resurrection.” Dr. Frazer, perhaps
unconsciously, somewhat colours the picture he
draws, partly because the English language itself
has become permeated with Christian conceptions.
Mr: Robertson continues the process in a man
ner which candour and the desire to represent
the actual facts hardly warrant. Then Mr: Vivian
Phelips takes things in hand, and unfortunately
allows his imagination to carry him entirely
away.
To give an instance of this with reference to
the myth of Adonis, let us take what Lucian and
Theocritus tell us about the latter deity’s return to
life. The author of the little book On the Syrian
Goddess, already quoted, says regarding Adonis:
“Afterwards, on the next day, they say mythically
that he is alive, and send him into the air ” (cap. vi.).
Dr. Frazer paraphrases this by saying, “Adonis was
supposed to come to life next day, and ascend to
heaven. This probably occurred in spring, about
Easter? (The italics are ours.) Again he tells us,
on Theocritus’ authority, that at Alexandria “ the
women wailing for Adonis sang that he would
return” (.ZiftwA, Attis, Osiris, pp. 182-6). What,
according to Theocritus, they really said was, “ Fare
well now, dear Adonis, and mayest thou be of good
cheer till next year. And now thou art gone,
Adonis, and as a friend shalt thou come when thou
arrivest” (Theoc., xv., 143-4).
Mr. Vivian Phelips on such authority founds his amazing statement that, “ Of all old-world legends,
the death and resurrection of a . . . divinely-born
Saviour was the most widespread” {The Churches
�52
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
and Modern Thought, p. 59). This assertion is hardly
justified by the facts of the case, at least as far as
the myth of Adonis is concerned. Whether it is in
harmony with what we learn from other somewhat
similar stories we shall be able to judge when we
have carried a little further this present chapter.
We now turn to the study of the Phrygian legend
of Attis. Some of the details of this story are well
known to us from classical sources, on which, in the
absence of genuine Phrygian accounts, we have to
depend ; others are unfit for repetition in a modern
language. Attis was, the tale relates, though in
other words, son1 of a savage monster called
Agdistis and a princess Nana. Agdistis was the
offspring of Jupiter and a huge rock. Dr. Frazer
points out that in reality Agdistis is “ a double of
Attis’' (Adonis, Attis, Osiris, p. 224). We dare not
sully our pages by narrating the details given regard
ing Agdistis’ conception, but it is emphatically not
a Virgin-birth. As Agdistis and Attis are practi
cally one and the same being, what is true of
Agdistis’ birth applies equally to that of Attis. The
people who told these tales certainly did not mean
to imply that they believed in the Virgin-birth of
either of these deities. Dr. Frazer is probably right
1 Arnobius (Adv. Gentes, Lib. v.) narrat Agdistem per Bacchi
dolum sese partibus privasse genitalibus. “Cum discidio partium
sanguis fluit immensus. Rapiuntur et combibuntur haec terra.
Malum repente cum pomis ex his punicum nascitur, cuius Nana
speciem contemplata, regis Sangarii vel fluminis Alia, carpit mirans
atque in sinu reponit. Fit ex eo praegnans.” Dr. Frazer, though he
refers to this story, says, “ His mother Nana was a virgin, who con
ceived by putting a ripe almond or a pomegranate into her bosom ”
{Adonis, Attis, Osiris, p. 219). It is pretty clear, to those who know
anything of the East, what the figurative meaning of the almond or
pomegranate really is; and the particulars which Arnobius gives of
the origin of the latter makes the meaning still plainer. Hence it is
hardly quite correct to say that here we have what is intended to be
an instance of belief in a Virgin-birth, in the true sense of the term.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 53
in holding that the name which in Greek assumed
the form “Attis’' is the word which in all TurkoTartar languages, including Accadian and Hungarian,
means “ Father,” while Nana in languages of the
same stock denotes “ Mother.” The “ rock ” probably
signifies a cloud or the sky, as in the case of Mithra
(see p. 19 above). Thus in its original form the myth
was a Nature-legend, entirely free from the unsavoury
features into which later mythologists distorted the
primitive account of the fertilising of the earth by
the heaven-sent rain.
Attis is distinctly at once a Sungod and god of
fertility. The story of his association with the
“ Great Mother,” Cybele, and of his self-mutilation,
is differently told by different writers, but the general
meaning is the same.
According to Arnobius, Agdistis entreated Zeus to
restore Attis to life. He refused to do so; yet he
granted that the body should remain undecayed,
that his hair should keep growing, and “ his smallest
finger always moving.” We find that the Sungod is
somehow identified at once with the generative
power of Nature and with the corn which is sown
in the earth and springs forth from it. The growth
of Attis’ hair after his death recalls the story, alike
Chinese and old Norse, which relates how the flesh
of Pw'an-Ku or Ymir became the soil (as did that
of Tiamat in Babylonian mythology), and his hairs
the plants of the earth. But, instead of a literal
“ resurrection ” of Attis, we are told that permission
to rise again was refused, and that his resuscitation
did not take place. If other accounts import into the
story the idea that Attis returned to life, it is clear
that the meaning is the same as in the case of
Adonis. To speak of the “resurrection” of Attis,
therefore, as being celebrated on the 25 th March,
during the observance of the Hilaria festival at Rome
�54
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
in honour of Cybele, hardly seems quite in accordance
with the real belief of Attis’ devotees. Livy speaks
of Cybele’s festival as occurring “ on the day before
the Ides of April,” i.e. on the 12th April. The general
character of the worship offered to Attis, and the
way in which the most devout of his adorers, the Galli,
mutilated themselves in imitation of their deity, is
well known. The main features of the myth of Attis
bear such a close resemblance to those of the Adonis
legend that we need not further dwell upon them.
It remains for us to enquire into the Egyptian story
of Osiris.
The Book ofthe Dead,as European writers, following
Lepsius, generally style the volume so often interred
by the ancient Egyptians in the tombs along with
the bodies of their deceased friends and relatives,
confirms the account long known to us from the
Greek writer Plutarch (De Iride et Osiride, capp.
13-21). It assumes as a well-known fact that Osiris
“ suffered death and mutilation at the hands of his
enemies ; that the various members of his body were
scattered about the land of Egypt; that his sister
wife Isis sought him sorrowing and at length found
him ; that she raised up his body and was united unto
him; that she conceived and brought forth a child
(Horus); and that Osiris became the god and king
of the Underworld ” (Budge, Book of the Dead, Introd,
to Translation, p. lxxx.).
It was believed that
when the pieces of his body (except one, which a fish
had swallowed) were collected and put together they
were made into a mummy, and thus preserved in the
tomb from decay (vide the Egyptian text, cap. cliv.,
line 16, Budge’s Ed.).
In this book it is clear that Osiris is identified with
the setting sun, as in the Hymn to Osiris, in Chap
ter XV., for instance. That passage thus addresses
him, “ Thou turnest thy face to Amentet ” (the
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
55
Underworld); “thou makest both lands to shine
with refined copper. The dead stand beholding thee,
they draw breath, they behold thy face as the rising
of the solar disc from its horizon ; their hearts rest
in beholding thee : thou art everlastingness, eternity.”
At the beginning of this Hymn he is styled, Un nefei\ “ the Good Being,” and the “ Lord of Eternity,”
and his worshippers must, therefore, originally have
conceived of him as a god possessed of very lofty
attributes, though in later times this idea became very
much debased, as in similar cases in all other Ethnic
faiths. At On (Heliopolis), Osiris was adored as
“ the Soul of Ra,” the Sungod (Pinches, Old Test, in
the Light of, etc, p. 264).
It is customary among modern writers to speak of
Osiris’ “ Resurrection.” This is a mistake which may
produce serious consequences. What we learn from
the Book of the Dead is that his body was carefully
put together and buried, and that he became god of
the Underworld, where be bestows eternal existence
upon those who become in a mystical manner identi
fied with him. It is because his body was held to be
dead, buried, and to remain lifeless, that the title of
god of the “ still heart ” was bestowed on Osiris, since
stillness of the heart implies death. In this respect
he was held to be in the same condition as mummi
fied men, being alive only in spirit, not in body.
This is clear from almost every reference to him in
Egyptian theology. Accordingly in one passage
Thoth is represented as addressing him thus : “ Thy
son Horus avengeth thee, ... he bindeth together
for thee thy flesh, he gathereth together for thee thy
limbs, he collecteth for thee thy bones. . . . Thou art
lifted up, then, Osiris; I have given thee thy hand :
I cause thee to remain alive for ever. . . . The great
company of the gods protecteth thee, . . . they
journey beside thee to the door of the gate of the
�56
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Underworld {Tuat}” {Book of the Dead, Egyptian
text, p. 47, lines 4-6). He is spoken of as “giving
birth to mortals a second time,” as well as himself
“coming to youth” again {op. cit., p. 482). Dr.
Budge explains the former expression as referring to
“the birth into the life which is beyond the grave”
(Introd., p. Ixxxv.). It certainly does not imply a
belief in the Christian doctrine of the New Birth, or
in a resurrection of the body of Osiris himself, or of
his devotees. “The educated Egyptian,” says Dr.
Budge, “ never believed that the material body would
rise again and take up new life. . . . They mummi
fied their dead, simply because they believed that
spiritual bodies would ‘ germinate ’ in them. . . . The
dead body of Osiris himself rested upon earth in
Heliopolis” (Introd., p. lxxxvi.). On this point the
language of the Book of the Dead is clear : “Ta x^t
nutert aat enti heteptu em Annu,” that is to say,
“The divine great body, which is laid at rest in
Heliopolis ” (Eg. text, cap. 162, line 7: cf. Plutarch,
op. cit., cap. 20, fink).
We are not told anything of the nature of the
spiritual body with which Osiris entered the Lower
World. But “that he dwelt in the material body
which was his upon earth, there is no reason what
ever to suppose” (Budge, ut suprci). His dismem
bered body was collected and preserved from decay,
for the same reason as that which led to the preserva
tion of the bodies of those Egyptians who could
afford to be properly embalmed. The Egyptian
authorities on the subject shew us that it would be
just as correct to say that the mummies in our
museums had “ risen from the dead,” as to speak of
the “ Resurrection ” of Osiris. He was believed to
be alive, and to reign in the Underworld, just as their
spirits were recognised as living, in spite of the fact
that their mummified bodies remained dead. In the
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
57
Christian sense of the word, Osiris’ followers did not
at all believe that he had “risen from the dead,”
though they thought that in the Underworld he could
render very real assistance to the spirits of those who
had served him on earth. In this respect Osiris in
Egypt was supposed to perform the same office as
was undertaken in Babylonian mythology by Merodach (Marduk). On Cyrus’ “Barrel Cylinder,” for
example, Merodach is referred to as “ The lord who
by his might quickeneth the dead” (“Belu sa ina
tukulti-sa [?-su] uballitu mitutan ”: Rawlinson, Cun.
Inscr. of Western Asia, vol. v., plate 35, line 19), that
is to say, gives life to their spirits by introducing
them into the realm of the departed, and there
watching over them. It is of great importance that
the true significance of such phrases should be rightly
understood. The context enables us to ascertain
what the real meaning of such language is, and how
it was understood by the worshippers of Osiris in
the one country and of Merodach in the other.
We must now consider the meaning of the myth
of Osiris. In name, and originally in the idea which
he represented, Osiris (in Egyptian Asar) is identical
with the Sumerian god Asari. The latter was, like
Osiris, god of the setting sun (Sayce, Religions, etc.,
p. 164), and was by the Semitic conquerors of the
country identified with Merodach. The spirit of the
pious Egyptian, when “ justified ” and identified with
Osiris, prays that it may come forth with Ra, the
Sungod, into the sky, and with him sail over the
world in the Atetet boat of the sun {Papyrus of Ani,
sheet 20, Hymn to Ra, line 5). Hence it is clear
that the death of Osiris meant the setting of the Sun :
and the red glow of sunset shed over the land was
possibly what the myth allegorically expressed by
speaking of the parts of his body being scattered over
the whole country after his murder by his brother
�58
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Typhon or Set. Or in Egypt there may have pre
vailed at one time, as was undoubtedly the case in
very many other countries, the barbarous custom of
killing a man and sprinkling his blood and scattering
far and wide over the fields the torn fragments of his
body in order to secure their fertility (Adonis, Attis,
Osiris, pp. 330-1). If so, the red and scattered rays
of the setting sun may have been at first allegori
cally compared to a death and mutilation of this
kind, and this may have been afterwards taken for
a literal reality. This, of course, is only a supposi
tion, and cannot be proved. But, if taken only as
a hypothesis, it gives a possible explanation of the
strange and ghastly story. In some way or other it
is certain that, though Osiris was at first the setting
Sun, who was entreated to enlighten with his rays
those whose spirits after death travelled with him
to his resting-place in the distant West, and to secure
them new life in the dark Underworld, yet he ulti
mately became identified with the fertility of the
ground and the growth of corn (Frazer, op. cit., p. 323 ;
Plutarch, op. cit.,. capp. 32, 33, 36, 38, 51, 65). Sayce
shews that it is incorrect to take Osiris as originally
denoting the sown corn, though later the identifica
tion did take place (Rel. of Ancient Eg. and Bab.,
p. 167). He was also associated with the Nile, if not
actually identified therewith, because the Nile gives
fertility and as it were life itself to the land by its
annual overflow. But Mr. Grant Allen is quite in
error in fancying that Osiris was an Egyptian chief
or king, deified after death. In this he is uncon
sciously following in the footsteps of Euhemeros,
and saying of Osiris what was asserted of Zeus
in Crete. Euhemerism (or “ Humanism ”) is quite
untenable as a theory employed to explain such
myths as those we are now dealing with. Osiris
was not a “ suffering Saviour ” in the sense of having
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
59
ever been a man, or having in any way died for men.
Such a theory has no support among Egyptologists.
The sowing of the seed corn was compared with
the burial of the dead and with the setting of
the sun ; and so it was not unnatural that the
Egyptians should consider the sunrise and the
springing up of the grain as typical of the life of
the spirit after its separation from the body. At
least as early as the Eighteenth Dynasty, Osiris was
supposed to be closely connected with the corn as it
emerged into new life, though we have seen that this
was not the original idea represented by the god.
But here we must guard against a misunderstanding
into which Dr. Frazer has somehow been led. He
says, “ Thus from the sprouting of the grain the
ancient Eyptians drew an augury of human immor
tality. They are not the only people who have built
the same far-reaching hopes on the same slender
foundation.” He then proceeds to quote St. Paul’s
words in 1 Corinthians xv.,36-38,42-44 (op. cit.,p. 345).
It is clear that he would have us understand that
the Apostle founds the Christian hope of immortality
upon the fact that the grain, when properly sown,
springs up fresh and vigorous. If this were so, the
foundation would be slender indeed. But had the
learned author whom we have quoted taken the
trouble to read St. Paul’s argument carefully before
criticising it, he would have seen that the Apostle
does not teach anything whatever of the kind. On
the contrary, he teaches that our hope of rising
again from the dead is based (not on the sprouting of
corn but) on the historical fact of the Resurrection of
the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Cor. xv., 1-24). This fact
he knew for a certainty, and so did the Corinthian
Christians. Even a casual reader may see that St.
Paul uses the growth of the corn only as an illustra
tion. Professor Sayce well points out that in Egypt,
�6o
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
too, no one fancied that the immortality of the soul
wasproved\yy the fact that the buried seed afterwards
sprang up into new life. Among the worshippers of
Osiris as among Christians the illustration drawn
from the corn was “ the result of the doctrine of the
Resurrection, not the origin of it. It is not till men
believe that the human body can rise again from the
sleep of corruption that the growth of the seed which
has been buried in the ground is invoked to explain
and confirm their creed ” (Rel. of Eg. and Bab.,
p. 167). Probably the Egyptians did not believe in
the actual resurrection of the body, but from the
most ancient times they, in common with all other
nations, held firmly the conviction that the death of
the human body did not end all, but that the spirit
lived on in another sphere. This is not the place to
discuss the origin and grounds of such a belief, but
it clearly did not rest on such a slender foundation
as Dr. Frazer fancies. Nor does the Christian.
It is not quite clear how and why Osiris finally
came to appear to the Egyptians to have more
in common with humanity than the other gods.
Probably this was due to his dying and yet in
a sense remaining alive, as the sun manifestly seemed
to do, in which fact he resembled men, whom death
could not and did not completely destroy. All the
Egyptian gods and goddesses were thought to possess
material bodies, upon which old age at least had
a very considerable influence for the worse. Hence
it was not difficult to conceive of one of them being
murdered, as the myth related in reference to Osiris.
They believed that this had taken place at the time
when the gods reigned on earth. Osiris was in this
sense, and only in this sense, regarded as having
been an Egyptian sovereign, who had been treacher
ously slain, and whose tomb could still be pointed
out at Heliopolis, just as could that of Zeus jin Crete.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
61
(For an answer to Mr. Grant Allen’s deductions from
this latter statement of Euhemeros, see my Compara
tive ReligionA)
In consequence of his having died and yet remain
ing spiritually alive, Osiris seemed to his worshippers
to be a real deliverer, at least in the sense that they
thought that he felt for dying men more perhaps
than any other god, and could therefore be entreated
to take pity on their souls and protect them from the
piultitudinous dangers that beset the soul on its long
journey to the Sekhetu Aalu or Elysian Fields. But,
as we have seen, they did not for one moment
imagine that his body had ever come to life again.
The doctrine of the “ Resurrection of Osiris ” must
therefore be regarded as due to the reading of
Christian teaching and belief into heathen expressions
of quite a different meaning. This being the case,
it is manifestly impossible to agree with our modern
Mythologists in seeking to deduce the doctrine of
the Resurrection of our Lord from the Osiris-myth.
inasmuch as the latter contained no such doctrine.
But from the pathetic way in which the Egyptians
turned to Osiris in their grief, in the presence of
death and the unknown future, we may learn how
deep and heartfelt was man’s need of a Saviour from
death and from sin.
Although it thus contained some measure of truth,
the Osiris-myth led in practice to the same degrada
tion of morals which we find encouraged by other
Nature-myths. Dr. Frazer reminds us that, at the
time when the Dendera inscription was composed,
Osiris had come to be regarded “ as a personification
of the corn which springs from the fields after they
have been fertilised by the inundation. This, accord
ing to the inscription, was the kernel of the mysteries”
1 Longmans & Co., i/-.
�62
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
(pf. cit., p. 323). As Osiris therefore, especially when
regarded (as Professor Maspero shews he was from
very ancient times) as the fertilising power of the
Nile which produced the corn, conveyed to the
mind of his worshippers the idea of generative
might, it is not strange that this conception led to
evil. Both Herodotus (ii., 48, etc.) and Plutarch
{De Iside et Osiride, capp. 18, 36, 51) tell us how
closely his worship at last became associated with
phallic rites and indecent orgies. Upon this matter
we cannot dwell, for obvious reasons. But the fact,
which is undisputed, shews us that, in spite of the
“ Negative Confession ” in the Book of the Dead (cap.
cxxv.), Osirianism cannot be correctly regarded as
inculcating moral purity. In this respect it resembled
all other religions which are in any way associated
with Nature-worship. This is the reason why almost
all clearly and fully developed forms of Ethnic
religion among civilised nations have produced such
vile enormities. The central points of religious
thought among the mass of men in heathen lands
have always been the mysteries of birth, marriage and
death, as Albrecht Dieterich has well pointed out.
Each man is deeply concerned to answer the questions,
“ Whence do I come, and whither do I go? ” These
mysteries are closely associated with his deepest
passions, and in them and their results, full of marvels
as they are, he seems to himself most clearly to
recognise the workings of the Incomprehensible, the
Divine. “ Being begotten and dying are the mystery
of man’s beginning and of his end : the procreative
power and impulse constitute the marvel of his
person and life, horror of death is the only dread
which even the strong man cannot wholly banish, the
enigmatic, the most awful thing which ‘ deadly5 foes
can do to the living. . . . Among many peoples . . .
the Earth is considered the Mother of Mankind, from
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
63
which the children of men issue forth to earthly
birth. . . . The belief is widespread also that the soul
of the dying man returns to the earth ” (A. Dieterich,
Mutter Erde}. Man sees procreation and birth in
the sowing of seed in the earth and in the consequent
growth of plants. In most countries this thought
was developed in such a way that the Sky was con
sidered to be the husband and the Earth the wife ;
hence in Greek mythology the gods themselves
sprang from Ouranos and Gaia—Heaven and Earth
(Hesiod, “ Theogonia,” v. 45), just as they did in Poly
nesia from Rangi and Papa. But in Egypt the
process was reversed, probably because the fertilising
and procreative rain does not there, as elsewhere,
fall from the sky, but the moisture rises instead from
the cornfields flooded by the Nile. So the sky (Nut}
in Egypt was the Mother, Earth (Seb} the Father.
The procreative idea, however, was the same, and,
associated with Osiris as the giver of new life and as
at once brother and husband of Isis, it produced its
usual effects in the degradation alike of religion and of
morals. The thought of Osiris and Isis as brother
and sister may have at first been innocent, but, like
the similar tale of incest between Zeus and Hera in
Hellenic mythology, it soon tended to lower the
moral tone, all the more so when it came to be
forgotten what these deities had primarily represented.
From the legend of Osiris we may, no doubt,
learn how firmly men clung, in Egypt as well as
elsewhere, to their primaeval belief in an after-life,
and how they yearned for a Deliverer from the
terrors of death and the grave. They felt the need
for a God who, by his own experience knowing
something of human suffering and death, could feel
sympathy for men, and would associate them with
himself in the world of spirits in the life beyond the
tomb. “In the fulness of time” the true God was to
�64
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
grant them the fulfilment of all their hopes, the
realisation of the deepest longings of their hearts.
Christ, “the Man Christ Jesus,” came to carry our
sorrows as well as to bear our sins, to die a literal
death of agony, and by rising from the dead evince
“by many infallible proofs ” the truth of His claims,
the certainty of our triumph over death in Him, and
the fact that God had been leading men to the light
and not deceiving them as by a will-o’-the-wisp to
their ruin through the instinctive belief He had
given them in a life to come.
Our examination of the myths of Adonis, Attis,
and Osiris leads to the conclusion that under these
names “the peoples of Egypt and Western Asia
represented the yearly decay and renewal of life,
especially of vegetable life, which they personified
as a god who annually died and” (in some sense)
“rose again from the dead” (Frazer, Adonis, Attis,
Osiris, p. 5). “ Through the veil which mythic fancy
has woven around this tragic figure, we can still
detect the features of those great yearly changes in
earth and sky which, under all distinctions of race
and religion, must always touch the natural human
heart with alternate emotions of gladness and
regret” {Golden Bough, second edition; Vol. III.,
p. 196).
It is clear, therefore, that we are not here dealing
with “ stories of suffering Saviours, similar in all
essentials to the Gospel narratives,” as has been so
positively asserted of late (cf. Mr. Vivian Phelips,
The Churches and Modern Thought, p. 161). On the
contrary, the worshippers of Adonis, Attis, and
Osiris, as well as those of Ceres or Demeter and
similar Nature-Powers, were offering adoration to
what they believed to be the generative power of
Nature, manifesting itself in the birth of men,
animals, and plants alike. The very indecency of
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
65
their phallic rites shews this. In no respect can
any of these deities be called a “ Saviour ” in the
Christian sense, implying as it does an atoning death
Undergone for man’s salvation from sin1 by One
who was perfect Man as well as perfect God, the
Head of the human race and its representative.
Osiris, Attis, and Adonis were gods, not men, though
the pathos attached to the metaphor which spoke of
their “ deaths ” appealed (as we have seen) to someping _ in man’s heart which testified to his dumb
consciousness of his need of a God who could suffer,
and could therefore sympathise with man in suffer
ing and death. We who believe in a Divine Purpose
forking through all things, and who know the love
of God as revealed to us in our Lord Jesus Christ,
can readily understand that He wished to lead men,
even by such dim thoughts as these, to know some
thing of their need of a Saviour, so that when He
came they might receive Him. The other theory,
that there is nothing in the Christian doctrine of our
Lord’s atoning death and of His resurrection which
was not believed ages before by the Gentiles through
put a very large part of the ancient world, and that
this widely accepted myth is the source of these
essential parts of the Christian faith, will hardly
|tand the test of a candid enquiry. It is absolutely
unhistorical, in the first place, as our examination of
the chief Ethnic legends on the subject proves. We
See that any supposed resemblance to the Christian
view is due almost entirely to the unscientific use of
Christian terms. Deceived by their employment of
these, men have fancied that the Ethnic myth con
tained proof that the leading features of the Christian
faith were largely pre-Christian. This is not unlike
the experience of simple-minded passengers a
generation ago, who not unfrequently clearly saw
1 Matthew i. 21.
F
�66
--
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the Equator—or fancied they did—when “ crossing
the line.” It was afterwards shewn that the reason
why they saw it was because a thread had been
carefully placed inside the telescope. On the other
hand, as has already been pointed out, the evidence
for our Lord’s actual resurrection1 is so strong that
it is incapable of being explained away. It was not
necessary therefore that Christians, when going forth
at the risk of their lives, in obedience to the com
mand they had heard from Christ’s own lips after
His resurrection, to preach the Gospel to all creation,
should undertake the Herculean task of forming an
eclectic but holy religion for themselves from the
faiths which had filled the world with vice unspeak
able. Nor was it possible for them to mistake a
myth for a fact and imagine that their Master had
risen from the dead because, forsooth, in an abso
lutely different sense, Tammuz was said to have
returned to earth for some months every year, or
Osiris to reign as king of the dead in the Egyptian
1 It is noteworthy that there is not, and, as far as we know, never
has been in the world any religion except the Christian based upon
the real or alleged resurrection of its Founder. We have seen that
the religions dealt with in this chapter are not so supported. Nor is
Buddhism, Islam, Zoroastrianism, or any other faith. When the
Bab was in danger of being put to death in Persia, his followers
believed that bullets could not hurt him. But when he was killed,
though he had claimed to be the Messiah (among other things), and
though the Babis knew that Christ was stated to have risen from the
dead, they did not once try to assert that their Prophet, though an
Incarnation, had come to life again. The fact is that such an event
is in the highest degree incredible, and nothing short of the most
absolutely indisputable proof could convince anyone of it. This
proof was present only in a single instance—the resurrection of our
Lord Jesus Christ. Of no other great Teacher could it even be
asserted. Yet Mr. Vivian Phelips ventures to affirm about St. Paul’s
time, “We know that this was an age when the resurrection of any
great prophet was taken to be a normal event” ! 1! (0/. «’A, p. 58).
It would be very interesting to know the names of some of the great
prophets of whom Mr. Vivian Phelips was thinking when he wrote
this romantic assertion.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS
67
Hades. Had it not been for their Master’s resurrec
tion they would have had neither a Gospel nor
,a commission, nor faith for their task, nor a motive
for undertaking it, with the assured prospect that
the world would hate them as it had hated Christ,
and that in it they would have tribulation.1 But the
theory we are considering makes greater demands
upon our credulity than even this implies. The early
Christians, when they began to spread their faith,
must have known something of the Master from
Whom their enemies derived the name they gave the
“brethren.” They could have been in no doubt
about His actual existence. They must have known
at least as much as did Tacitus, that “the originator
of that name, Christ, had been executed by the pro
curator Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius.” 1
2
As He was a historical person whom they had known
and loved, they at least were hardly likely to mistake
Him for a sun-myth.
We have in our Gospels, and to a less degree in the
Epistles, a portraiture 3 of Christ, evidently the image
of Him which dwelt in the hearts of His early
disciples and justified some in the next generation in
speaking of themselves4 as carrying Christ with
them. His Resurrection is in keeping with His pre
dictions and with His whole character and the purpose
of His life and His death as there described and
explained. To what is that portrait due? Is it the
work of honest men imperfectly depicting a character
So perfect that they have failed to do it justice? Or
is it due to Fiction,5 Myth, or Hallucination ?
1 Cf. e.g, John xvi., 33.
2 Tacitus, Annates, Lib. xv., 44.
8 See Row’s Jesus of the Evangelists ; Seeley’s Ecce Homo ; Simpson,
77z« Fact of Christ.
4 Martyrium S. Ignatii, cap. 2.
s Mr. Vivian Phelips writes: “Nothing is more conceivable than
that the Bible story may spuriously embellish the real life of Jesus
�68
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
A study of the whole literature of the world—
ancient and modern—is now possible to us, and we
are thus able to judge for ourselves what success all
these factors, together or apart, have had in enabling
the most talented writers and most gifted thinkers,
philosophers, and poets of any or every age and
clime to represent the ideally Perfect Man. Indian
literature depicts for us the characters of Rama and
Krishna; Greek, those of Achilles, Agamemnon, and
Ulysses; Latin, that of the pious Jineas. Which
of these can we compare with the Gospel portraiture
of Christ? Yet the Evangelists were not poets,
philosophers, or men of great learning, or talented
writers. “The1 very language which they used was
not classical Greek. On internal evidence we should
conclude that only one or two of them at most can
possibly have been writing in their native language.
They were, therefore, very heavily handicapped
indeed. Hardly any great secular writer has won
distinction, and perhaps not one has come to the
very front rank, in writing in any but his native
tongue. But the Evangelists have, if the theory”
as much as the mythical accounts of Buddha, for instance, spuriously
embellish the real life of Prince Siddhartha” {The Churches and
Modern Thought, pp. 58, 59). This writer has apparently never read
the Apocryphal Gospels, or at least has never considered the character
.of the Jesus there spoken of. In that character and in the incidents
there related we have the product of the romantic spirit of that time.
Had “spurious embellishments” been employed in our Gospels, how
entirely different would have been the portraiture presented to us !
It is safe to say that the Apocryphal Gospels are invaluable, because
they shew us what our genuine books would have been had the mythic
influence been at work in them. That they differ toto ccelo in spirit
from these Apocryphal romances shews that the same tendency could
not have given rise to two such entirely opposite results. As the
Apocryphal Gospels are the result of the growth of myth or fiction, the
canonical Gospels cannot be such. Mr. E. Benson well says, “His
reporters, the Gospel writers, had but an imperfect conception of His
majesty, His ineffable greatness—it could not well be otherwise”
{The House of Quiet, chap. xii.).
1 Religio Critici, pp. 39, 40.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 69
(that their account is unhistorical) “ be correct, con
tended successfully with all the greatest writers of the
world, meeting them on their own ground, and have
. produced a romance which, in the universal judgment
of the whole civilised world, has utterly eclipsed all
others in abiding interest and sustained charm. This
is what we are asked to believe as the only alterna
tive to accepting the Gospels as simple records of
historical facts. But the difficulty of their task is
not done full justice to by stating it thus. Other
writers have for the most part undertaken merely
to draw pictures of a perfect man. The Evangelists
did more; they endeavoured to represent the Perfect
Man shewing Himself such under the most trying
circumstances, but they had to perform their task in
Such a manner that every recorded word and deed
of this character should be in perfect keeping with
the claim which they represent Him as making to be
One with God and the one Manifestation of God.
Still more, they have actually succeeded in doing all
this so successfully that the conception of God thus
formed in their minds has become the only one
possible to even the highest minds in all lands,
even at the beginning of the twentieth century
after the birth of Christ. Moreover, they, without
any model to guide them, had to make their romance
so real that it would be accepted as true for many
ages, and would be acknowledged, even by those who
disbelieved it, to be the lifelike delineation of ‘ the
one character, without the idea of whom in the mind
personal piety is impossible.’ Can any imaginable
degree of credulity accept such a theory as this?
Yet, if the character of the Jesus of the Evangelists
be not strictly true and real, this is what the Evan
gelists did.”
In conclusion, we must consider the vast difference
between the effects produced by the Ethnic myth -
�70
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of Osiris, Attis, Adonis, and those which resulted from
the Christian Gospel of the Resurrection of Christ
Jesus. Seldom has the evidence of the universal
corruption of morals which quite naturally and in
evitably1 flowed from the Nature-myth been more
carefully detailed than by Dr. Frazer. What, on the
other hand, was the result produced as a necessary
consequence of the reception of faith in the Risen2
Christ ?
Let us hear in the first place what Pliny, their
judge, torturer, and in some cases executioner, states
that he learnt from early Christian converts as
to the duties imposed upon them by their faith.
“ They3 used to assert that the sum of (be it their
fault or) their error was this, that they had been
accustomed on a fixed day to meet together before
dawn, and to repeat to one another alternately a
hymn to Christ as God, and to bind themselves by
a sacrament not to the commission of any crime, but
not to commit thefts, robberies, adulteries, not to
break their word, not to deny a thing entrusted
to them when called upon to restore it.” Even
1 Seneca says of poets who ascribed evil deeds to the gods : “ Quid
aliud est vitia nostra incendere, quam auctores illis inscribere deos ? ”
[De Erev. Vitae, cap. 16).
2 Dr. Frazer’s method of treating this matter is unworthy of any
unbiased investigator. He implies that, as Zela in Eastern Pontus
appears to have been the chief religious centre of the district, as
Christianity had spread there very .much by the time Pliny wrote
(a.d. i 12), as Zela was noted for its great sanctuary of Anaitis or
Semiramis, as at Comana in the same district a religious festival of a
vile nature was held in honour of this goddess, and as Corinth,
famous for debauchery, was likewise a place where Christianity was
early preached, therefore there was a close connexion between Chris
tianity and these abominations. “ Such,” he says, “ were some of the
hotbeds in which the seeds of Christianity first struck root.” It would
have been more honest if he had quoted, for example, St. Paul’s letters
to or from these “hotbeds” (as in the text I have quoted one written
from Corinth itself, i.e. I Thess.) to show us what connexion, if any,
the evil practices of those places had with Christian precepts.
3 Pliny, Epp. Lib. x., No. 96.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 71
tender women1 under torture could not be compelled
to confess that Christians were guilty of any worse
crimes than these, nor did renegades themselves
accuse those whom they had deserted of working
w the1 desire of the Gentiles ” and of having, like the
2
worshippers of the Powers of Nature, “walked in
lasciviousness, lusts, winebibbings, revellings, carousings, and abominable idolatries.” On the contrary,
Pliny himself tells us that, in consequence of the
large number of those who had been converted from
heathenism to Christianity, the temples of the gods
had “already3 been almost deserted,” doubtless
because Christians had felt themselves called out
of darkness to light and bound to walk as children
of light. It required all the tortures that he could
inflict to compel some of the weaker sort to abandon
Christ. When this was done, “the4 temples once
more began to be thronged, and the sacred sdlemnities which had long ceased began to be observed
again,” those of Anaitis and other Nature-goddesses
doubtless among them. Braver Christians preferred
death5 to returning to these abominations. Such
was the contrast which both Christians and heathens
perceived between Christianity and the worship of
those Nature-powers for which the district had long
been 6 noted. They were in no danger of confound
ing the two religions—the one pure, the other
impure; the one resting on personal knowledge
of the Crucified and Risen Christ, the other on an
1 “Quo magis necessarium credidi ex duabus ancillis, quae minigtrae dicebantur, quid esset veri et per tormenta quaerere. Sed nihil
aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam et immodicam” (ibid.}.
2 1 Peter iv. 3. Peter wrote to the “Dispersion” in Pontus and
that neighbourhood.
3 Pliny, op cit.
4 Ibid.
8 “ Supplicium minatus : perseverantes duci iussi” (ibid.}.
6 Strabo, xii., 3, 32, and 36; also xii., 2, 3.
�72
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
allegorical representation of the annual “ decay1 and
revival of plant life.”
We turn now from external testimony to internal.
St. Paul, the great Apostle of the Gentiles, the
founder of so many Churches, has left us his epistles
to those very Churches, and from them we can judge
what attitude Christianity adopted from a moral
standpoint with regard to the prevalent heathenism
of the time. From Corinth, notorious for its sen
suality, he writes to the Thessalonians, reminding1
2
them what he had taught them. “ For3 this is
the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye
abstain from fornication ; that each one of you know
how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctifi
cation and honour, not in the passion of lust, even as
the Gentiles which know not God.” It is hardly
necessary to quote from his other epistles to shew
how sternly he denounced all such evils whether in
Corinth4 or elsewhere. The attitude which Chris
tianity from the very first assumed to all these crimes
was that of absolute opposition. No one who com
mitted them had “ any 5 inheritance in the kingdom
of Christ and God.” Hence those very practices
which were of compulsory observance in the case
of the Nature-gods and the goddesses associated
with them—Cybele, Ishtar, Anaitis, and the rest—
were so contrary to Christianity that indulgence in
them ipso facto put the sinner out of the Church.
Nay more, corrupt as many portions of the Universal
Church have since at various times become, this
particular series of sins, which were essentially sacred
actions in the belief of the worshipper of Adonis and
1
2
3
4
5
Adonis, Attis, Osiris, p. 186.
i Thessalonians iv. 2.
1 Thessalonians iv. 3-5.
1 Corinthians vi. 9-11 ; v. 9-13, etc.
Ephesians v. 5.
�THE MYTH OF ADONIS, ATTIS, AND OSIRIS 73
Attis, have never by Christians been met with any
thing but the sternest denunciation as deadly to
body, soul, and spirit.
In our own day, when the predicted “ falling away ”■*■
has begun, when our newspapers speak cheerfully of
the fading of belief in historical or “dogmatic”
Christianity, as a natural consequence we see a revival
of those very theories and practices with which
Christianity engaged in. a life and death struggle in
.tile early days. Man, held to have sprung from the
brute, is too often excused if he tries to return thither.
As a French writer says, “The2 notion of Law is
obliterated ; between individuals, classes, nations,
appetite is proclaimed as the measure of right; every
where is the unfolding of the Ego, bestial or sancti
monious ; literature is dedicated to various forms of
rut, and extreme intellectual refinement leads back
by every way to the unbridling of the human brute.”
So it was in the last years of the previous dispensa
tion, so it is in France now, and so it must be in
every land in proportion to the progress in it made
by those very same tendencies of thought and con
duct which led to the fearful state of things that
prevailed at the time when our Lord came “ to save
His people from their sins.” But this very fact shews
how great a contrast there is now, and always has
been, between the spirit which animated the wor
shippers of Adonis, Attis, Osiris, and that which
worked in the hearts, minds, and lives of the Apostles
of Christ. Let us not mistake darkness for light,
evil for good, Christ for Belial. Even to the present
day, wherever it has not been overthrown by Chris
tianity, the ancient worship of the procreative powers
of Nature still continues. We find it in India in our
1 2 Thessalonians ii., 3, 7) dirocrracrla, “the Revolt,” cf. Farrar, The
Witness of History to Christ, pp. 6-8.
2 J. Darmesteter, Les Proph'etes <TIsrael, Pref., p. x.
�74
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
own time, where these powers are represented as
Siva, and his wife Durga, where 30,000,000 of stone
phallic emblems are said to be worshipped in different
parts of the country, and where unfortunate girl
children are “ married to the god ” to-day, for exactly
the same form of worship and service as that which
was rendered by the tepoSovXai of the ancient world.
Neither there nor in Syria of old do we find purity
springing from impurity. Christianity is the anti
thesis of this kind of Nature-worship, while at the
same time the Gospel unfolds to man the truth which
underlies all that mass of error, and which, when
perverted, has, in the modern as in the ancient world,
degraded men below the level of the beasts that
perish.
�OUR MODERN MYTHOLOGISTS
versus
THE VIRGIN-BIRTH
RECENT writer informs us that, in his opinion,
there are certain “ ideas, universal in their range,
and found fully developed in the depths of savagery,
which, rising with mankind from plane to plane of
civilisation, have at last been embodied in the faith
and symbolism of the loftiest and most spiritual of
the great religions of the world—the religion of
civilised Europe” (Hartland, Legend of Perseus, Vol.
I., 1894, preface). The one idea of this description
which he selects to prove his thesis is that of a
supernatural Birth.
Another writer expresses himself thus : “ Of all
old-world legends, the death and resurrection of
a virgin-born, or in some way divinely-born, Saviour
was the most widespread ” (Mr. Vivian Phelips, The
Churches and Modern Thought, p. 59).
A third author says, “ Such tales of virgin-mothers
are relics of an age of childish ignorance, when men
had not yet recognised the intercourse of the sexes
as the true cause of offspring. That ignorance, still
shared by the lowest of existing savages, the ab
original tribes of Australia, was doubtless at one time
universal among mankind ” (Dr. Frazer, Adonis, Attis,
Osiris, Bk. II., p. 220).
The first two of these writers make a very definite
assertion, and the third endeavours to frame a theory
75
�76
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
to account for the fact which they have so positively
alleged. We shall see that careful study of the whole
subject proves that the asserted fact of the widespread
belief in the Virgin-birth of a Saviour among the
supporters of Ethnic faiths does not rest upon solid
foundations. But even if it did, Dr. Frazer’s hypothesis
to account for such a belief is hardly satisfactory.
We must briefly examine it before proceeding to test
the alleged fact which it is intended to explain.
Dr. Frazer (i) asserts that the savages of Australia
are ignorant of a certain matter of universal ex
perience ; and (2) then uses the world “ doubtless ”
as all-sufficient evidence (it must suffice, for he has
none other to adduce) in proof of his theory that this
ignorance was once shared by all men, and was the
cause of the asserted widespread belief in Virgin
births. In such a case it would be natural to suppose
that, as the hypothetical savage at first imagined all
births to be Virgin-births, therefore, when he found
that this was not generally the case, he would at once
give up all belief in such phenomena. But Dr.
Frazer supposes that the savage drew this conclusion
in nine hundred and ninety-nine cases, and yet in the
thousandth instance still clung to his “ childish
ignorance.” If so, we have to enquire why he did
this. The theory does not explain it.
It is by no means certain that even the aborigines
of Australia, or any single tribe among them, really
were ever in such a state of ignorance. To say
nothing of the evidence afforded by the vocabularies
of their languages, the very strict rules which exist
in every tribe to regulate marriage within certain
strictly defined limits and the prohibition of adultery
inculcated in the tribal “ mysteries,” both these things
render it more than doubtful whether the Australian
aborigines are or ever were ignorant of the physio
logical fact referred to. There is absolutely no evidence
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
77
then that the supposed original savage “ shared ” an
ignorance which did not exist even in Australia. If
he did not, Dr. Frazer’s explanation falls to the
ground.
It requires a great deal of credulity to enable any
one to accept his theory. The self-mutilation of
Attis in the fable, and that of the Galli in history, do
not look as if people were ever so very ignorant as he
would have us believe. The details which he gives
of the method adopted in order to promote the
fertility of the soil, by imitating what people supposed
to be the fertilising and procreative processes at work
in the world around them, serve rather to shew how
continually such thoughts obsessed men’s minds even
in very ancient days. The widespread idea that the
Sky was the Father of all things in a very literal
sense, and Earth their Mother, tends in the same
direction. When, in addition to this, we consider
the almost universal prevalence of phallic worship,
we are compelled to withhold assent to Dr. Frazer’s
attempted explanation of belief in Virgin-birth.
Some writers have persistently confounded with
one another two very distinct things: (i) Virgin
birth, and (2) birth attributed in some other manner
to supernatural influence. As the Christian faith is
concerned only with the former, and that too only in
the case of our Lord, it is imperatively necessary to
distinguish these from one another. This Mr. Sidney
Hartland has not done. The whole question is of
considerable interest, and doubtless much may be
learnt from studying it carefully. But in order that
this may be possible we must recognise the distinc
tion to which we have called attention. To con
found two different things is quite unscientific, and
can hardly be conducive to clearness of thought or
to an accurate conclusion.
By distinguishing between the two different kinds
�78
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of alleged supernatural birth, we are able to dispense
with the consideration of every instance in which
birth from a Virgin is not distinctly mentioned as an
essential part of the narrative. Those which, though
supposed to be in some manner supernatural, are in
no sense Virgin-births form the vast majority, both
in mythology, Greek, Roman, Hindu, etc., and in
folk-lore and fairy tales. With regard to these it is
sufficient for our present purpose to say that they
bear witness to men’s consciousness that there is no
effect without a cause. They felt that people in any
way specially remarkable required to be accounted
for somehow. Fairy tales may be an evidence of
ancient belief in Animism, perhaps of nothing else.
But legends connected with the birth of actual
historical characters are of interest, because they
shew a belief in Divine interposition, and in some
thing remotely resembling a Divine mission.
What is remarkable is that, while in mythology
supernatural births of the second class are common
enough, yet Virgin-birth hardly ever appears either
in Ethnic mythology or in fables about well-known
historical characters. This is a point upon which it
is necessary to insist, because it is one not generally
recognised. Those who are acquainted with classical
mythology will readily understand what we mean.
The Greek myths about the birth of the off
spring of Zeus by human mothers, such as yEgina,
Alcmena, Europa, Io, and Maia, for example, were
in no sense associated with Virgin-birth. On. the
contrary, the myths are most unpleasantly realistic
from the material point of view. Zeus, we are told,
transformed himself into a bull on one occasion, into
a man on another, always employing a material
form for the purpose. When we remember that the
myth originally denoted that the fertility of the earth
is due to the rain from the sky, we shall see that the
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
79
material element is an essential part of the story.
People were so well aware that the union of the
sexes is necessary to the production of offspring
that they could not conceive of the fertility of the
earth without explaining it in the same way. The
gods and goddesses themselves, as we learn from
Homer, were possessed of material bodies, capable
of being mutilated or wounded in battle, needing
refreshment in sleep, nourishment at the banquet.
Hence the tales told about Zeus’ conduct with
reference to those mortals, who by him became
the mothers of Hercules and other demigods, were
certainly not intended by those who invented and
accepted these myths to imply the Virgin-birth of
these fabulous heroes. Hindu mythology is strikingly
similar to Greek in the carnal vileness of its narra
tives. It is quite possible that these were originally
mere allegories, and as Nature-myths were free from
offence; but in mythology they soon became some
thing very different.
One of the earliest Greek opponents of Christianity,
whose work has in part been preserved to us—Celsus
—refers to the myths relating to the births of
Perseus (thus anticipating Mr. Sidney Hartland),
Amphion, ?Eacus, and Minos, and argues from them
in opposition to the Christian belief in our Lord’s
Virgin-birth. In his reply Origen points to the tales
regarding Danae, Melanippe, Auge, and Antiope
as a proof that even the heathens felt that it was
necessary to account in some supernatural way for
the existence of persons far superior to ordinary
humanity. Reasoning from this admission he
enquires which was the more suitable in Christ’s
case, a birth in accordance with the usual order of
things, or one of quite a different kind. Such a
reply would be unanswerable; but it would have
been well had Origen then gone on to point out
�8o
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
the difference between such myths as those of the
Greeks, which did not imply Virgin-birth, and the
Gospel narratives which his opponent had assailed.
Among persons who have actually played a part
in history, if we may except certain dynasties of
kings such as the Pharaohs, it is rare to find any
whose birth is said to have been in any way super
natural. Mr. Vivian Phelips tells us that “the
disciples of Plato, centuries before the Christian
era,” believed that he was born of a virgin {The
Churches and Modern Thought, p. 128). This is an
error. Diogenes Laertius, who wrote about 200 A.D.,
mentions the fable that Perictione, Plato’s mother,
received a visit from Apollo, but he does not attach
any credit to it, nor does he imply that a single one
of Plato’s disciples really believed anything of the
sort. Nor, in such a case, could it be said that they
held any belief in Virgin-birth. Suidas is also re
ferred to in support of the fable; but, as he wrote
about 1100 A.D., his authority cannot be considered
of any importance. Justin the historian in his
epitome of Trogus Pompeius (Lib. XV., chap. 4)
mentions a similar legend about Seleucus, saying
that it was sometimes stated that, though Laudice
his mother was the wife of Antiochus, one of Philip
of Macedon’s leading generals, his father was Apollo.
Here again the myth did not mention a w>g7>z-birth,
nor was it seriously accepted by anyone. In fact,
such statements seem to have been merely poetical
quotations, so to speak, from the old mythology, the
intention being to flatter Seleucus or Plato, as the
case might be, by comparing him to Aesculapius or
some other legendary character who was said to be
a son of the brilliant god.
Alexander the Great, when his success in war had
turned his head, claimed divine descent, but this was
due to the fact that the priest of Ammon in Egypt
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
81
had, in accordance with Egyptian custom, termed
the king son of that god, whom the Greeks identified
with their own Zeus. Hence it was supposed that
Philip of Macedon had not been his real father.
But this brings us to the consideration of Eastern
hales of this nature. We discover them first among
the Semites of Babylon, where the king came to be
recognised as a god, and hence required divine
descent to be predicated regarding him. According
to Professor Sayce, the deification of the Pharaohs
was due to “the Asiatic element in the Egyptian
population” (Religions of Ancient Eg. and Bab.,
pp. 43j 351j 352)- Hence each Pharaoh was de
clared to be “Son of the Sungod” (Se Ra). But,
though some modern writers have incorrectly spoken
Of the Egyptian texts as teaching the virgin-birth of
one or more of these monarchs, this is not the case.
For example, the expression has been used regard
ing Amon-hotep III (Sayce, op. cit., pp. 249, 250), but
the language of the inscription which tells of that
monarch’s conception is only too unmistakably clear.
The god Amon-Ra is there represented as saying
that he had “ incarnated himself in the royal person
Of this husband, Thothmes IV ” (see Sayce’s own
Version, ibidi). The text explains that, this being
taken for granted, Amon-hotep’s birth was quite in
accordance with the usual order of things, though
his divinity is asserted, according to custom, because
his father, Thothmes IV, being a Pharaoh, was as
such an incarnation of the Sungod.
In China we find, in the case of one historical
person, and one other who may be historical, a fable
which puts us strikingly in mind of some of the
fairy tales which Mr. Sidney Hartland has collected
in reference to beings who have never existed at
all. It is stated that the mother of Fo-hi, the
mythical founder of the Chinese Empire, ate a
G
�82
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
flower which she found lying on her clothes on her
return from bathing. In consequence of this her
son was born. The ancestor of the Manchu dynasty
was also said to have been conceived in almost
exactly the same way, except that his mother ate a
red fruit instead of a flower. Such myths abound in
folk-lore, but they are rarely connected with persons
who really existed {Legend of Perseus, Vol. I., pp. 106,
107). Fo-hi’s existence is very doubtful, which
perhaps accounts for the matter. The same tale
(practically) that was told about him was told about
the founder of a rival dynasty, possibly through con
fusion between them. Not only is it impossible to
discover how many ages after their deaths these tales
first arose, but also there is no proof that they were
ever intended to be believed.
The assertion that the worshippers of Attis,
Mithra, and Krishna all believed in the virgin
birth of their respective deity has already been
tested in these pages and proved devoid of founda
tion. We have also examined a similar statement
made regarding Buddha, and have seen that it is
quite unfounded. The way in which such things
are rashly affirmed nowadays among us well ex
emplifies what Newman somewhere calls “reckless
assertion based on groundless assumption.”
Mr. Vivian Phelips assures us that “in Persia
Zoroaster was miraculously conceived” {The
Churches, etc., p. 128). If by this he means to say
that the Zoroastrians really believed that their great
teacher was born of a virgin, it is at least strange
that nothing whatever is said on the subject, either in
the Avesta itself or in later Zoroastrian works. It
is not too much to say that the idea is entirely due
to modern mythology. In the Avesta itself we
are told that Zoroaster’s father was a man named
Pourushaspa (Vendidad, xix. 6, cf. vv. 6 and 46;
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
83
Yasna, ix. 13; Yasht, V. 18, xxiii. 4, xxiv. 2), and
his genealogy is traced back for ten generations.
His mother’s name, Dughdhova (later Dogdo), does
not occur in the Avesta, so far was any thought of
virgin-birth from occurring to the Zoroastrians, even
in the comparatively late times in which much of
the Avesta was composed. We are informed that
Zoroaster was born to reward his father for being so
faithful in offering libations of the sacred haomajuice. and that is all. Myths did ultimately grow up
about the historical Zoroaster. Pliny, for instance,
tells us that Zoroaster laughed on the day of his
birth, and that he lived for thirty years in the wilder
ness on cheese (Lib., XXX. 1, 2, § 39). Yet he
knew nothing about anything miraculous in con
nexion with his birth. Even in the Dasatir i Asmani,
a Pahlavi work composed at earliest in the time of
the Sasanides, we are merely told that Zoroaster
was son (perhaps descendant) of Spitama and traced
his ancestry to Luhrasp, and that he was a prophet.
In the Shahnamah (beginning of Vol. Ill) we learn
that Zoroaster was a prophet, but nothing is told us
about virgin-birth. Even in the Zaratusht-Namah,
dated A.D. 1278, there is nothing of this kind re
corded. From tradition we learn_that Pourushaspa
drank some
juice, in which Ormazd had placed
Zoroaster’s fravashi (soul). Thereafter Dughdova
conceived her son in the usual way (Dinkart, vii.,
2. 7-10, 14, sqq.\ Yasht, iii., 2, 6; Yasht, xix., 81 ;
Zaratan, sect, iv., vv. 68, sqqij. So far from this
being an instance of virgin-birth, Zoroaster was the
third of five brothers (Zad Sparam, xv., 5).1 Hence
it is clear either that Mr. Phelips uses words with an
esoteric meaning, or that here again facts are so un
fortunate as not quite to agree with his statements.
1 Vide Rosenburgh’s edition of the text of the Zaratusht-Namali,
(St. Petersburg, 1904),
�84
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
The same writer, turning to Egypt for a moment,
makes a very important statement about one of
the deities worshipped there. “In Egypt,” he says,
“ Horus, who had the epithet of ‘ Saviour,’ was born
of the virgin Isis. The Egyptian Bible, remember,
is the oldest in the world” (The Churches, etc.,
p. 128). This must mean (1) that the Book of the
Dead styles Horus “ Saviour,” and (2) that the same
book states that his mother Isis was a virgin. These
statements are of great interest, and the only thing
which can in any degree be held to lessen their
importance is the fact that they are not quite correct.
This, of course, is a mere detail, often overlooked
in modern mythology. Maspero tells us that,
amid the tangled wilderness of Egyptian myths,
there is one which represents the cow, Isis, as pro
ducing a son, Horus, independently. But this
might be styled ^z/^r-birth more correctly than
anything else. He explains this as intended to
signify the great fertility of the Delta. No such
myth, however, appears in “the Egyptian Bible,”
nor among the many titles there given to “ Horus,
son of Isis,” is there one that can rightly be trans
lated “ Saviour ” in any possible sense. In the Book
of the Dead, Horus is called “ Horus inhabiter of the
Sun-disc, Horus of the two eyes, Horus without
eyes, Horus the blue-eyed, Horus son of Isis, Horus
son of Hathor, Horus son of Osiris, Horus begotten
of Ptah, Horus dweller in blindness, Horus traveller
of eternity, Horus the avenger of his father, Horus
in the pilot’s place in the boat, Horus of the two
horizons,” many of which titles show that he was a
Sun-god. But he is not called “Saviour.” As for
the virgin-birth of Horus, which is the matter under
consideration, so far is this from being taught in
“the Egyptian Bible,” that, as we have seen, more
than one father is there ascribed to him. Dr. Budge
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
85
well sums up the information on the subject given
us in the book by saying that Isis is represented as
raising up the body of the murdered Osiris and
“ being united to him ” before she conceived and
brought forth her son Horus. Horus was therefore
a posthumous son of Osiris, whose death he under
took to avenge (Introd, to version of Book of the
Dead, p. lxxx.). This fact, that Osiris was Horus’
father, is confirmed by a Hymn to Osiris quoted
by Chabas {Revue Archeologique, 1857, p. 65).
Plutarch’s account agrees with this {De Iside et
Osiride, cap. 19). The details are so fully given
in such clear and undisguised language that they
entirely remove any doubt whatever regarding the
manner of Horus’ conception. Plutarch tells also
of an elder Horus
cit., cap. 12), and his narrative
results in the conviction that even when she herself
was born Isis was no longer a virgin. An instructive
idea of the Egyptian belief regarding Isis is given
in Professor Maspero’s Les Inscriptions des Pyramids
de Saqqarah, from which Dr. Budge gives an extract
{Book of the Dead, Introd., p. cxxxiv.). This should
suffice to shew how far the worship of Isis was from
leading to moral purity of heart or life, as more
than one modern mythologist has asserted it did.
We cannot venture to transcribe such passages for
obvious reasons. What has been already said, how
ever, should suffice. Let us hope that in the case
of such a highly imaginative writer as Mr. Vivian
Phelips the dictum of Schlegel may ultimately be
verified. “ The extremes of error, when this has
reached the acme of extravagance, often accelerate
the return to truth” {Philosophy of History, Lecture 1,
finf
Passing from ancient times to time still future, we
find in the religious books of the Zoroastrians the
statement that, before the end of the world, three
�86
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
prophets, descendants of Zoroaster, are to be born at
intervals, to teach people his law. They will be
messengers of Ahura Mazda, and will co-operate
with one another in destroying all the mischief
wrought by demops and men {Yasht, xiii., 142).
Though born of three different mothers, they will be
in the most literal? manner sprung from Zoroaster’s
seed. Regarding not a single one of these future
prophets is any hint given that he was expected to
be virgin-born, as is often stated by modern mythologists. The fact is that such clear details are given
about the manner of the conception of each that it is
impossible to translate them into a modern language.
One of the three is Saoshyant,1 also called Astvatereta. His mother’s name will be Vispa-taurvI, and
she will conceive him while bathing in Lake Kasavl.
A slightly different form of the myth, in which
Ormazd is to take the part of Zoroaster as parent of
the child, is mentioned by Eznik {Refutation of
Heresies, Armenian original, Bk. II., cap, x., p. 133
of the Constantinople ed. of 1873). Whichever of the
two accounts we take, Mr. J. M. Robertson’s asser
tion that Saoshyant is Virgin-born in ParsI myth
ology {Pagan Christs, p. 339) is incorrect. He
seems, moreover, to have studied the subject rather
cursorily, as he evidently confounds Saoshyant, the
future prophet, with Sraosha the archangel.
Thus our careful investigation of the subject leads
1 De hoc Horomazae nuntio futuro, illo in libro, qui Creatio
{Bilndihishriih} appellatur, dicitur fore ut, saeculi iam appropin- •
quante fine, haec puella in eo, cuius mentionem fecimus, lacu corpus
abluens, e Zoroastris semine ibi servato gravida facta filium pariat.
Num puella semine virili gravida virgo appellari potest ? The account
of the conception of Saoshyant’s companions, Ukhshat-ereta and
Ukhshat-nemanh, is similar. Vide Vendidad xix, 4-6; Yasht xiii.,
128, 142; Bundihishnih xxxii., 8, 9. The date of Yasht xiii. is
approximately fixed at about 200 b.c. by the fact of the mention of
Gaotema (Gautama Buddha) in § 16.
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
87
to the conclusion: (i) that Virgin-birth, strictly socalled, either forms no part whatever of any great
religion but the Christian, or that it has crept in, if at
all, only very Jate indeed; (2) that even in myth
ology (which Mr. Grant Allen quite wisely dis
tinguishes from religion) mention of anything which
at all resembles Virgin-birth is extremely rare; (3)
but that, on the other hand, tales of supernatural
births of an entirely different kind are found in some
religions, and especially in mythologies. These facts
are well worthy of reflection, but they do not at all
bear out the assertions which we have quoted at
the beginning of this chapter. Folk-lore and myth
ology show that stories of supernatural births which
bear no resemblance to the Gospel narrative were
and are current in different lands among the mass of
the ignorant, though it is clear from the way these
tales are told that they are not taken in earnest even
by the most credulous. They should fittingly be
ranked with fairy tales or such stories as those re
lated in the Arabian Nights, in Appuleius, and in
other works of fiction composed for the amusement
and entertainment of the uneducated, or of those for
whom literature of a more serious character, if it
existed, possessed little charm.
Should evidence ever be forthcoming to prove
what has certainly not yet been proved, that belief in
Virgin-birth was at one time widespread, we shall
then have to try to account for it. Dr. Frazer
assumes that this belief was extensively held, and he
assumes, in order to explain this, (1) that men were
originally in a savage state, and (2) that they were
then ignorant of a physiological fact of some im
portance. We have already briefly commented on
the second of these two assumptions. The former of
the two has been often stated as a fact and not as
a theory. But there are grave difficulties in the way
�88
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
of our accepting it.1 As Professor Sayce says, “ It
has first to be proved that modern savagery is not
due to degeneration rather than to arrested develop
ment, and that the forefathers of the civilised nations
. s of the ancient world were ever on the same level as
' ' the savage of to-day. In fact, the savage of to-day
is not, and cannot be, a representative of primitive
man. If the ordinary doctrine of development is
right, primitive man would have known nothing of
those essentials of human life and progress of which
no savage community has hitherto been found to be
destitute. He would have known nothing of the art
of producing fire, nothing of language, without which
human society would be impossible. On the other
hand, if the civilised races of mankind possessed from
•f- the outset the germs of culture and the power to
develop it, they can in no way be compared with the
savages of the modern world, who have lived,
generation after generation, stationary and un
progressive, like the beasts that perish, even though
at times they may have been in contact with a higher
civilisation. To explain the religious beliefs and
usages of the Greeks and Romans from the religious
ideas and customs of Australians or Hottentots
is in most cases but labour in vain ; and to seek the
origin of Semitic religion in the habits and super
stitions of low-caste Bedawm is like looking to the
gipsies for an explanation of European Christianity ”
(Rel. of Ancient Eg. and Bab., pp. 17, 18). M. Renan
also writes, “No branch of the Indo-European or the
Semitic races has fallen to the savage state. Every
where these two races reveal themselves to us with
a certain degree of culture. ... We must therefore
suppose that civilised races have not passed through
the savage state, and that they bore in themselves
1 See my Comparative Religion, ch. i., Longmans and Co., 1/-.
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
89
from the beginning the germ of future progress ”
{Hist. Gen. des Langues Sems. Vol. I., p. 484).
It is impossible, therefore, to grant the assumption
that men were originally savages, and that modern
savages’ beliefs represent those from which all religions
have sprung. It would be manifestly absurd and
unhistorical to derive our Christian doctrines from
the superstitions of wandering gipsies, but to some
people it seems quite scientific to imagine that they
have practically sprung from savages in the condition
of the Australian aborigines. Until somewhat better
proof is afforded us than has yet been adduced, how
ever, we can hardly be expected, from any point of
view, to admit that, as Mr. SidneyTIartland suggests,
the doctrine of our Lord’s Virgin-birth has become
embodied in the Christian faith on no better ground
than that of the survival of a belief “ fully developed
in the depths of savagery.” There is no proof that
savages hold or have ever held such a doctrine at all;
nor is there any really conclusive proof that the
civilised nations of the world have ever passed
through a condition at all resembling that of the
savages still to be found in a few of the countries of
the world.
Although belief in Virgin-birth, properly so called,
cannot be proved to have been widespread, yet there
can be no doubt that in many parts of the world we do
find stories which assert something supernatural in the
case of fabulous heroes, and to a less degree in that
of certain great men of the past. We have seen that
it is impossible to derive the Christian doctrine of
Christ’s Virgin-birth from such sources, especially as
it arose among Jews, who had no such myths current
among them. But the question remains, How did the
idea of supernatural births arise among the heathen ?
Are these all to be accounted for, as some undoubtedly
may be, by considering them to be Nature-myths?
�90
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
Or may there be a deeper meaning in them ? May
they not have sprung up through some ancient
tradition, misunderstood and corrupted ? And may
not their preservation, if not their origination, evince
the existence of a felt need, the yearning of the human
heart for some proof of the nearness and the care of
the Divine ?
.
Dr. Frazer says, “ The notion . . . of a human being
endowed with divine or supernatural powers belongs
essentially to that earlier period of religious history in
which gods and men are still viewed as beings of much
the same order, and before they are divided by the
impassable gulf which, to later thought, opens out
between them (“Golden Bough” 2nd Ed., Vol. I.,
P- I3i)May it not, on the contrary, be that it was just to
prevent men from feeling themselves separated from
God by a deep “impassable gulf,” that human con
sciousness of need readily grasped the tradition which,
found among so many nations, declared that at one
time the gods had walked with men ? Tradition told
of a Golden Age and of a Fall: but even the narrative
of the occurrence of the latter proved the conviction
that at one time it had been possible for man to enjoy
communion with his Maker. If any lingering remem
brance of that happy age survived—and this we know
was the case—it was not unlikely that men would
enquire whether there was still hope of restoration to
their lost estate. Hence the Divine Promise of a
coming Saviour, to be born of a woman (Gen. iii. 15),
would very naturally be cherished, in some form or
other, among men. It would not be strange were
theories to arise on the subject, and if these theories
were degraded more and more in proportion as the
conception of the Divine declined among the heathen
nations. Men might readily suppose that there would
be something supernatural about the birth of the
*
■ ■ »
t
L *■
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
9i
promised Saviour, and this may, in some measure,
account for such legends on the subject as were really
believed in some parts of the ancient world. The idea
would, no doubt, be easily capable of great abuse ; it
might degenerate into an incident in popular fables ;
but none the less it would, in the minds of the
thoughtful and pious, prevent the growth of that
feeling of an utter and hopeless separation between
God and man which must otherwise have come about.
On the other hand, if we suppose that popular
fancy, quite independently and with no apparent
reason, evolved the idea of supernatural—nay, even
of Virgin—birth, then we must conclude one of two
things: either (1) that it is an unmeaning delusion,
or (2) that it was developed under Divine guidance.
Here again we reach the same conclusion to which
an examination into the question of sacrifice also
leads {vide, my Comparative Religion^ ch, iii., Long
mans and Co.). If we take the Christian view, every
thing readily falls into its place. We see, indeed, in
Ethnic faiths perversions of originally noble concep
tions, we perceive the gradual progress of degrada
tion in all religions, we find religion often turned
into a curse, as Lucretius thought it {De Rerum
Natura, Lib. I., 63, 64; 79-102; 931,932, etc.), and
not a blessing. Yet throughout all “ one unceasing
purpose runs,” a Divine plan for the education of the
human race in things of the utmost importance to
them, a gradual preparation for a fuller revelation of
God in Christ Jesus, for man’s restoration to the
state of peace with God from which he had fallen.
On the other hand, if we reject this view, everything
is meaningless and absurd, and that too in the most
vital department of human life and history. Religion
has always played, for good or ill, a greater part in
the affairs of the human race than anything else.
As no other department of the world’s affairs has
�92
MYTHIC CHRISTS AND THE TRUE
ever been neglected by the Creator, it seems con
trary at once to reason and to analogy to suppose
that this has been overlooked by Him. It is true
that in religious and moral matters we have to make
allowance for the operation of other factors besides
the Divine. Human freewill and the opposition of
evil spiritual powers have, here as elsewhere, intro
duced and continued in existence not only elements
of discord but also evils of the worst description.
Yet all the more on that account, as the religious
instinct has been implanted and perpetuated in man,
must we believe that God’s purpose will ultimately
be wrought out in its guidance and development,
that false views will be gradually eliminated or con
futed, and that every element of truth will be pre
served and caused to shine more and more clearly
for man’s enlightenment and perfecting, until he is at
last restored to that perfect harmony with the will
and character of God which his true and lasting
happiness demands. The more evident may be
come, therefore, the wide diffusion of belief in the
possibility of supernatural birth of whatever kind,
the more clearly shall we see that some truth under
lies the idea, and that there must be some foundation
for the fancy. The false coin presupposes the
genuine, and would never have existed but for it.
In the Gospel, as we learn why men were led to
believe in the possibility of a Divine Incarnation
(see my Comparative Religion, ch. ii.), so we are
taught what is the great fact which accounts for
Ethnic belief in supernatural births. In this respect,
as in others, Christ not only “ fulfilled,l the Law and
the Prophets, but also satisfied and in a sense justi
fied the instinct which in many parts of the world
led men at least to recognise the possibility of a
supernatural birth. The very existence of so many
varied forms of legends of births of this kind shows
�VIRGIN-BIRTH
93
that such a thing is not “unthinkable.” The ex
planation of the belief is not that men were originally
ignorant savages, and that Christianity has incor
porated into itself one of their quite unaccountable
vagaries of thought; on the contrary, it is that, even
when fallen into savagery or into false religious
beliefs, many tribes still preserved in a corrupt form
lingering traces of a remembrance of a Divine Pro
mise which constituted man’s only hope, and which
was fulfilled in the fulness of time.
James Hemetson & Son, Printers, London, N. W.
�TO THE READER
If you are interested in the work of
the North London Christian Evidence
League, please send your name and
address to The Hon. Secretary, who
will gladly send you a booklet giving par
ticulars of the work done by the League
and conditions of Membership.
THE HON. SECRETARY,
N.L.C.E.L.,
146 KENTISH TOWN ROAD,
LONDON, N.W.
�THE NORTH LONDON
, . CHRISTIAN EVIDENCE LEAGUE . .
PUBLISHING DEPARTMENTS
n and 12 HIGH STREET, HAMPSTEAD, N.W.
Telephone 2649 P.O.
WHAT IS THE BIBLE ? Rev. C. L. Drawbridge, M.A.,
Author of Is Religion Undermined? etc. etc.
THE VALUE AND AUTHORITY OF THE BIBLE.
Rev. R. Brook, M.A., Tutor, Lecturer, and Chaplain of
Merton College, Oxford
BIBLICAL CRITICISM. Rev. R. Bruce Taylor, M.A.,
Presbyterian Church, St. John’s Wood
THE CHARACTER OF JESUS CHRIST. Rev. T. A.
Lacey, M.A., Chaplain of London Diocesan Penitentiary.
THE NEW TESTAMENT MIRACLES. Rev. C. L.
Drawbridge, M.A.
THE DIVINITY OF CHRIST. By J. A. Douglas, B.A.,
B.D., Member of the Senate of London University
THE RESURRECTION AND THE RESURRECTION
BODY. Rev. Canon C. H. Robinson, M.A., Editorial
Sec. S.P.G. Author of books on this and other subjects
PAGAN CHRISTS. Rev. Dr. W. St. Clair Tisdall,
M. A., James Long Lecturer on Oriental Religions. Author
of many books
RELIGION AS AN ART, COMPARED WITH RE
LIGION AS (A SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE), A
SCIENCE. Rev. J. H. Rushbrooke, M.A., Minister
of Archway Road Baptist Church
CHRISTIANITY AND SOCIAL REFORM. Rev. A. J.
Waldron, Vicar of St. Matthew’s, Brixton
ANTHROPOMORPHISM. Rev. J. Monro Gibson, D.D.,
M.A., LL.D., Minister of the Presbyterian Church, St.
John’s Wood, and a very well-known author
PRAYER. Ven. Archdeacon H. E. J. Bevan, M.A., Rector
of Chelsea, Prebendary of St. Paul’s. Examining Chaplain
to the Bishop of London. Archdeacon of Middlesex
The above Lectures, etc., with Questions, Answers, and
Discussions, given at Stanley Hall, are now published in
pamphlet form, and may be obtained from all Booksellers, and
from the Publishing Department of the League.
Price 3d. each, or post free# 4d.
�MS
WORKS BY THE ML
Rev, C. L, DRAWBRIDGE, mB
THE TRAINING OF THE TWIG
9E
An Essay on the Religious Education of the Young
Crown 8vo, 8s. net
POPULAR EDITION. Crown 8vo, paper covers, 6d. net
TWENTY-FIFTH THOUSAND
OLD BELIEFS
AND
NEW KNOWLEDGE
Crown 8vo, paper covers, 6d. net
SEVENTH THOUSAND
RELIGIOUS EDUCATION:
How to Improve it
Crown 8uo, 2s. net; paper covers, 1s. net
IS RELIGION UNDERMINED?!
Crown 8vo, 8s. 6d. net; paper covers, 1s. net
LONGMANS, GREEN, AND GO.
LONDON, NEW YORK, BOMBAY, AND CALCUTTA
�!W London Christian Evhtenoe
1 League Publications
Sristian and pagan
PARALLELS
W. net. By W. H. H. NASH.
Jlnirodnotibh by Rev. G, L. DRAWBRIDGE, M.A. (Hon,
Org. Seo, Christian Evidence Society).
jjit'e book is on? of tbemoai crushing replies to an anti-Christian-^rguiaept
java seep for » tong lima.”~jRv. JD». St. CtofeTiada’J, lata Long Lacuires
Religi&ns, in The Rtcord,
felSTIANITY AND ITS
r OPPONENTS
r Keriorisis Report* of Tweftw Leetvras given to Sp»ptiC3y
, together With Questioni, Answers, and ©iw«j.sienjh
...
2s, fid, net.
'
iTHIC CHRISTS AND
THE TRUE
3y Rev. Dr. W. ST. CLAIR TISDALL, M. A.
Is. net, doth ; 84. net, paper,
Jrsft’wM,—" This is a wuable contribution to Christian apologetics.”
LIGIOUS BELIEFS OF
| SCIENTISTS
2
2*. fid. net.
Cloth boards, pp.- |66.
te insiry hitherto unpublished tetters from great scientists effec*
if proving the theory that men of -.pienbe urn Rs religious than
By A. H, TABRUM.
ion by Rev. C. L. DRAWBRIDGE, M.A. (Chairman of the
North, London Christian Evidence League).
testimony is overwhehntng pii the cat, fra' point that there
sary antagonism between Scsofce and Keligton-.”
;
TER & LONGHURST, 9 Paternoster Row, E C.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Mythic Christs and the true : a criticism of some modern theories
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Tisdall, W. St Clair
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: vi,93, [3] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Includes bibliographical references. Annotations in pencil. Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered pages at the end. Published for the North London Christian Evidence League. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Hunter and Longhurst
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1909
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N638
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rationalism
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Mythic Christs and the true : a criticism of some modern theories), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ-Rationalistic Interpretations
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b6e6f042dd2ac6608bc894150c0405d6.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=Do05321kxu8lsvFLUhOn2XTSsfJ4vMKS4Cvrpoh4TgjihjAfh4YTrXwm3lr-fi-z2pdywnet%7E6LEaVEK6AA94Pda5sjIpkPktc5c4qp6IxLu1HBjbSYdx-T62OD4sBESnMBBJ6p9OjdTX1aYCnOXO2gXKVJMZPL%7EUeIt8DxxztV2ow5qWG1LhdgZJdniBDtpEbpat7O%7E4w%7EepdMro%7EYmO8fcyDpOhYYSS0-6gcYz2dCpsylqyKq4WjsMJQO3SZzu%7EgdveqGmW6n2PR7wEqO1eTH8rf191oOlKvrUZQDB1HYdmK6Lq6Lkb4Zc4t%7ExNU%7EVQ2%7E3a6RRbfgfypQzYIXghw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b8599de83046cf68523402637b381002
PDF Text
Text
IS JESUS GOD?
A SERMON
PREACHED AT THE FREE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
CROYDON.
�G
/
IS JESUS GOD?
A SE RMON
PREACHED ON TRINITY SUNDAY,
AT the
FREE
CHRISTIAN
CHURCH,
CROYDON, NEAR LONDON.
BY
ROBERT RODOLPH SUFFIELD,
Minister of the Congregation.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS
SCOTT,
NO. II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1873.
Price Threepence.
�PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET, . W.
�IS JESUS GOD?
--------<-------
“ The hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers
shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth : for the Father
seeketh such to worship Him.”— John iv. 23.
N increasing number of thoughtful men deem the
doctrine of the Deity of Jesus to be against God,
against reason, against progress, against results, against
history, against Jesus Christ, against the scriptures. Let
us briefly examine this doctrine.
In the Gospel of Luke, ch. ii., Mary, when chiding
Jesus, speaks of Joseph and herself as his parents:
“ Thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.” The
question we consider this morning is whether, in spite
of her statement, he was in reality God, and not the son
of Joseph and Mary. This is not a question of theo
logical subtleties, as when people discuss the incompre
hensible nature and essence of the Supreme Being; it is
a question of fact; it is also a question of great practical
importance. If Jesus is God, we lose his example as
man; but, what is more important, we distance God,
worshipping Him, as Jesus, in a rebaote Heaven. More
over, we obtain a very peculiar and somewhat hopeless
idea of God, namely, as acting a part, as feeble, or
appearing as if feeble, as capable of being flogged by
His creatures, as needing food, as being educated like a
young boy; the Omnipotent in a cradle, the Eternal
A
�6
Is Jesus God?
dying, the author of life in a grave. God, so utterly
defeated, perhaps may be defeated again. God, once a
baby, once a corpse, may hereafter thus relapse.
If the universe was once guided from a cradle, presided
over from a grave, guided by one obedient to a Jewish
married couple, we ought to know it. If such state
ments are false, we ought to be disabused of them as
injurious and superstitious.
Is Jesus God ? I do not consider this morning
whether he was a specially appointed and miraculous
Messiah, whether he was supernaturally born, or whether
his soul had in some way pre-existed, but, was he
God ? is he God ? not in some fanciful, poetical, unreal
way, but according to the belief of the Churches of
Rome, of England, of Scotland, as expressed in formu
laries, articles, and creeds: “ God of God, Light of
Light, Very God of Very God, of one substance with the
Father• ” as expressed in the collect for Christmas Day,
“ Our Lord Jesus Christ who liveth and reigneth with
Thee, ever one God, world without end,” and in the last
prayer of the Morning and Evening service (prayer of
St Chrysostom), where Jesus is addressed as “Almighty
God ”—or, as in the Litany, where he is addressed as
“God the Son,” and then, throughout the whole Litany,
invoked, to the neglect of God the Father—for, ex
cepting a few sentences, all the Litany is addressed to
Jesus. It is not the God of the Universe we find ad
dressed—but a God who had an incarnation, a nativity,
a circumcision, a baptism, a temptation, and a death—
such as, “ the Good Lord ” is asked to deliver us from
all the interior sins of the soul; from murder, heresy,*
and sudden death; and as supreme over the earth and
skies, is asked to preserve to our use the kindly fruits
and the due seasons. Watts, in one of his hymns,
speaks of “ This infant is the Mighty God, Come to be
* How shocking to associate with crimes the honourable
variations of opinion upon difficult questions.
�Is Jesus God?
7
suckled and adored;” and in another hymn he speaks of
Jesus as the “Infant Deity,” the “Bleeding God.”
The great Church of England divine, South, in
his defence of the Deity of Jesus, condemns “ the
men who cannot (as he says) persuade themselves
that Deity and Infinity could lie in the contemptible
dimensions of a human body;” “that- omnipotence,
omniscience, and omnipresence should be wrapped in
swaddling clothes; that the glorious Artificer of the
Universe who spread out the Heavens like a curtain, and
laid the foundations of the earth, turned carpenter, and
exercised his trade in a small shop,” &c. &c. The cele
brated defence of the Church of England, entitled the
4 Characters of a Believing Christian,’ and commended
by Convocation, thus presents a summary of Christian
belief: “ He believes a virgin to be the mother of a son,
and that very son of hers to be her Maker. He believes
Him whom Heaven and Earth could not contain to
have been shut up in a narrow womb ; to have been born
in time; who was and is from everlasting; to have been
a weak child carried in arms, who is the Almighty, and
Him once to have died who only hath in Himself life
and immortality.” Such is the faith which, according
to all the so-called orthodox Churches, is necessary to
everlasting salvation.
Such is the orthodox dogma of the Deity of Jesus.
Is not the very statement of it enough to prove the first
two heads of my argument—that it is against God, his
greatness and unchangeableness, against reason, and all
the apprehensions of our mind ?
But some, who in recent days have embraced a new
dogmatic position, and who teach that Jesus was not
God in the orthodox sense, but only as a kind of mani
festation of God, argue against us, and say, “ By denying
such a divinity in the nature of Jesus you lower
humanity—it is good to admit that in one human body
and one human soul the divine soul of the Universe was
breathing, inspiring, dwelling.” We reply: “ Un
�8
Is Jesus God?
doubtedly; but such dogma, thus explained, is a
heresy according to the decision of all the Churches ;
you have borrowed the idea from us, and limited to
Jesus what we declare to be in various degrees the
appanage of all; we recognise the Divine Soul of the
Universe, breathing through all souls, and according to
the great word of Jesus, making all men “ one with him,
and one with his father.” The dogma of the Deity of
Jesus deprives us of the greatest idea of God, violates
the reason and consciousness of mankind, and, if
explained mystically, limits to one what belongs to all.”
It may be said, “What matter,—it pleases some,—others
could not part with the idea without pain.” We reply:
“ It impedes progress, it involves the perpetuation of all
abuses ; to protect this dogma of the deity of Jesus we
must have creeds, articles, complicated theologies,
anathemas, persecutions, and priesthoods; we must dis
courage astronomy because it reminds of God’s immen
sity, and reject geology because it proclaims this world’s
antiquity. The doctrine cannot be proved out of the
Scripture, therefore, sooner or later, its advocates must
fall back upon the Church. The orthodox divines argue
that the doctrine of the deity of Jesus is very consoling
and beneficial because it brings God nearer to us. The
Roman Catholic replies: “Not at all so, unless you
admit that he still dwells amongst us in the Host on the
altar.” The orthodox Protestants say: “ We cannot
believe that God is contained in a little gilt box, or
carried about in a clergyman’s waistcoat pocket.” The
Roman Catholic replies, “ How inconsistent, since you
already believe that He was once contained in a
manger in a stable and seated on Mary’s lap,
The orthodox say, “ There are some isolated passages
of Scripture which imply the Deity of Jesus.” The
Roman Catholic replies, “ There are as many passages
which insinuate the supremacy of the Pope, the Deity
of the Host, and the everlasting damnation of
unbelievers.” The Roman Catholic says, “We hold
�Is Jesus God?
9
■with you the Athanasian dogma; our Church is
the chief upholder of the Deity of Jesus; in the
Church of England you have bishops, priests, and very
many people who deny it; the Dissenters are not always
clearly and persistently orthodox on the subject, all the
advocates of free thought reject it, the German successors
of Luther either deny it or explain it away; in this
Church of the Pope it is guarded with a vigilance and
anxiety nowhere else to be found.” But the Roman
Church is also the avowed enemy of all progress, of all
liberty, of all science, of all mental and moral independ
ence. Thus the dogma of the Deity of Jesus stands
as a barrier against all the progress, the liberties and
the education of mankind.
4thly,—Results prove the falsity of the dogma. The
God of the Universe, 1,800 years ago, was born into a
Jewish family, lived amongst people who did not find
out that he was God, his mother ordered him about and
reproved him, his friends and disciples argued with
him, contradicted him, invited him, and went out to
dinner with him—but they knew not that he was
their Creator. In distress we fly to God ; the disciples
were in distress, but they fled away from Jesus.
And the results at the present time, what are they ?
The Jews are supposed to have possessed prophecies
to enable them to discern Jesus as their God. The
8,000,000 Jews still reject him as even a Messiah, and
as to the supposed prophecy of him in Isaiah as God,
they say that the English translation is so maliciously
distorted that an educated Hebrew boy scorns such
dishonest perversions of the sacred books of his nation.
In the East, when after six centuries the dogma of the
deity of Jesus got established, a new religion arose to
denounce it as an idolatry, and 120,000,000 of Mahommedans as a protest against such an idolatry, invoke
the one universal, all-pervading God, when, day by day,
His name is proclaimed from the minaret of a hundred
thousand mosques. One million Parsees still, as in the
�IO
Is Jesus God?
days of old, proclaim the One God. This God-Jesus,
created by Greek and Boman Bishops, has never won
belief amidst the 120,000,000 of the Brahminical
religion, or amongst the 189,000,000, of Pagans, or
amongst the 483,000,000 of Buddhists, His deity is
only partially admitted amidst the 171,000,000 of
Protestants, though strenuously maintained by the
182,000,000 of those who declare that, through the
Pope, this modern God alone commands. What a
success for a Deity !
But, 5thly,—What says History ? The orthodox
teachers tell us now, that the deity of Jesus is the one
great feature of Christianity, that on it rests the essen
tial dogmas of the atonement and of a vicarious re
demption from an eternal hell.
We turn to the first sermons of the first propagators
of Christianity. St Paul propounds Christianity at
Lystra, amidst a multitude prepared to offer sacrifice to
him, and he does not even name Jesus; but he warned
them to turn from such like vanities (man-worship),
“ to turn to the living God, who made heaven and earth
and the sea, and all things that are therein.” Such was
the teaching necessary for the salvation of Asia Minor—■
nothing about the deity of Jesus. Paul went to Athens,
and on the Hill of Mars, from the very throne of the
Greek philosophy, surrounded by the temples of the
deified men who had become gods of war, of beauty, of
love, of art, and of wisdom, he proclaimed the Chris
tianity deemed sufficient for the salvation of Greece—
but not one word about the deity of Jesus—but, inviting
them to turn from such superstitions, he says : “ Whom
ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you—God
that made the world and all things therein, seeing that
He is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples
made with hands, neither is worshipped with men’s
hands ; as though He needed anything, seeing He giveth
to all life, and breath, and all things ; and hath made
of one blood (life) all nations of men for to dwell on
�Is Jesus God?
II
all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times
before appointed and the bounds of their habitation ;
that they should seek the Lord if haply they might feel
after Him, and find Him, though He be not far from
every one of us: for in Him we live and move and have
our being; as certain also of your own poets have said,
For we are also His offspring. Forasmuch, then, as we
are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that
the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven
by art and man’s device. He now commandeth all
men everywhere to repent (reform), because He hath
appointed a day in which He will judge the world in
righteousness by that man whom He hath ordained.”
What was the first sermon ever preached by a
disciple of Jesus ? On the day we now call Whit
Sunday, Peter lifted up his voice, and for the first
time proclaimed Christianity (Acts ii.) He therein
announced that all Christians would have the power of
working miracles, and proclaimed other portents and
prodigies, but uttered not one word as to the deity of
Jesus ; but he solemnly exclaims : “ Ye men of Israel,
hear these words, Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved
of God, by wicked hands crucified and slain,” &c., and
he ends by proclaiming Jesus to be the Master and the
Messiah, that is “Lord and Christ.” Thus Christianity
could be first solemnly announced to the world without
one word about the deity of Jesus or his atonement.
Any one now preaching that sermon of Peter would be
declared by all to be a Unitarian of the school of Chan
ning, and Priestley, and Belsham. Look at the address
of the first martyr, Stephen (Acts vii.), not one word
.about the deity of Jesus. In Acts ix. read the account
of the supposed miraculous conversion of St Paul.
Jesus is described as appearing to him, but he does not
announce himself as God. The converted Saul preached
to prove that Jesus is the Messiah, or to use the current
Jewish expression, the Son of God, or the Christ—e.g.,
ix. 22—“ Saul increased the more in strength, and
�12
Is Jesus God?
confounded the Jews which dwelt at Damascus, proving
that this is the Christ.” Why he ought to have proved
that Jesus is the Creator and Supreme God. On the
pages of history we can trace the gradual growth of this
dogma. Platonists, like Philo, had introduced the idea
of a Logos (i.e., Power, or Beason, or Word) dwelling in
the Supreme Being and emanating from Him. That
Platonic notion engrafted itself into Christianity, and
gradually produced the Nicene and Athanasian creeds.
How gradual was the corruption of Christianity we can
perceive by examining the works of Origen, that man of
profound and varied learning, who, after writing many
commentaries on the sacred Scriptures, died a.d. 254.
The Pagan superstition of praying to Jesus had already
spread amongst the ignorant multitude, for Origen, in
his treatise on prayer, says: “ Prayer is never to be
offered to any originated being, not to Christ himself,
but only to the God and Father of all.” For when his
disciples asked him, “ Teach us to pray,” he did not
teach them to pray to himself, but to the Father—con
formably to what he said: “ Why callest thou me good ?
there is none good but one, God the Father.” How
could he say otherwise than, “ Why dost thou pray to
me ? Prayer, as you learn from the Scriptures,is to be
offered to the Father only, to whom I myself pray.”
It is not consistent with reason for those to pray to a
brother who are esteemed worthy of one Father with
him. “You with me, and through me, are to address
your prayer to the Father alone.” Let us, then, at
tending to what was said by Jesus, pray to God with
out any division as to the mode of prayer. But are we
not divided if some pray to the Father and some to the
Son. Those who pray to the Son fall into a gross error
through want of judgment and examination.” Such
was the teaching of a man unrivalled among Christians
for his virtues and his wisdom, whose death was the
result of the tortures he endured for his faith. As
Christians deteriorated morally they became addicted to
�Is 'Jesus God?
T3
sophistry, superstition, and Pagan imitations ; the dogma
of the deity of Jesus gained ground till it was, at length,
formally established by Bishops who deemed their
deliberations inspired; once established with the help
of numerous cruel persecutions, and in defiance of
innumerable protests, it was received by the Gothic con
verts, and afterwards by the first Protestants on autho
rity ; but, whenever Protestants carry out their princi
ples, and inquire, we find the most illustrious rejecting
the deity of Jesus, witness, amongst so many others,
Milton,* John Locke, Sir Isaac Newton, and, at the
present time, almost all the leaders in science, in philo
sophy, in criticism, and in literature.
6thly,—The dogma is opposed to Jesus Christ; it is
a libel upon his moral character. If he was God, he
ought not to have said “ The Father is greater than I; ”
“ I go to my God and your God.” He ought not to
have prayed and to have said in his agony, “ Remove
from me this cup, nevertheless not what I will but what
Thou wilt; ” and, with his last breath, “ Father into
thy hands I commit my spirit ; ” “ My doctrine is not
mine but His that sent me; ” “ As my Father hath
taught me I speak these things ; ” “I seek not my own
glory, but I honour my Father; ” “To sit on my right
hand and on my left is not mine to give ; ” I come not
to do my own will but the will of Him that sent me—I
do nothing of myself.” He was tempted, he prayed to
God, he gave thanks to God: “ Father, I thank Thee
that Thou hast heard me.” He declared his ignorance
of important matters—“ Of that day knoweth no man,
not the angels, neither the son, but my Father only; ”
“ My God, my God, why hast Thou forsaken me ? ”
“In that day ye shall ask me nothing.” The life, the
conduct, the language of Jesus combine in showing him
to be man. The advocates of his deity adduce expres
sions which on other occasions he applies equally to all
his brethren.
* Milton’s last work is a scriptural argument to disprove
the Trinity, and the Deity of Jesus.
�14
Is Jesus God f
The Jesuits argue that it is lawful to* conceal the
greatest truths and the gravest matters, and to act as if
they were not—for, they say,—“Jesus was God, he
concealed his Deity, and by that concealment deceived
everybody—and we ought to imitate him.” Their argu
ment is logical; the immorality can only be censured by
those who deny the deity of Jesus. If it is replied he
was both God and man, whatever does not suit for one
nature must be applied to the other, we say “ Where is
that evasive doctrine of contradiction ever stated,”
when by Jesus ? by what apostle ? Nowhere; it was
the sophistical invention of subtle Greek bishops when
they had determined on the deification of Jesus, and
had to reconcile their superstition with the life and
words of Jesus.
7thly,—The dogma, if admitted, is destructive of the
character of all the New Testament writers. Even
were we to admit as genuine the passages now univer
sally admitted to be spurious, such as the three witnesses
in St John, even accepting the mistranslations of King
James’s version as if correct, accepting as of apostolic
age what is falsely entitled the Gospel of St John,—all
that can then be said in defence of the deity of Jesus is
that a few passages here and there exalt Jesus very
much, and are considered by many to point to his
divinity. But as such passages are deemed by others
no proof at all, and as the entire tenor and drift of each
writer is quite opposed to the deity, it would have been
most dishonest of a writer to have introduced so trans
cendently important a dogma only in a casual incidental
way, and never accompanied with statements calculated,
if not to convince of the truth of the dogma, at least to
show that it was held. The adorers of the God-Jesus
now do not thus convey their teaching, they do not
incidentally insinuate the dogma amidst entire pages of
an opposite tenor; but they insist on it as the one
essential feature of Christianity; they propound it in
the minutest mode ; they anathematise all who cannot
�Is Jesus God ?
*5
believe it; they address prayers and litanies to Jesus as
God ; they supplement the scriptures with explanations
and history with false statements; and by complicated
controversies they deem it possible to prove what is
declared to be essential to the salvation of all.
My brethren, the deifier and adorer of Jesus, the
deifier and adorer of Buddha, is doubtless, if sincere
and good, as pleasing to the Supreme Being as the
adorer of God. Salvation consists in truthfulness of
speech and act, in goodness, in earnestness, in selfdevotion to the highest thoughts we know.
The adorers of a deified Jew are doubtless as pleasing
to God as those who adore their Creator, so long as
their adoration is the truthful expression of their
thought; when it ceases to be such, their adoration is
an immorality.
But strive to hasten on the time when the poor souls
of our brethren shall no longer be lacerated with the
conscientious endeavour to accept as essential what they
cannot prove.
True religion needs no critical and learned arguments,
no gods who have to be proved by texts and supported
by arduous apologies; the living truth is in the con
science and the soul of man. Be true to yourself and
you will be true to God. Let worthy ecclesiastics prove
out their gods ; we will be content if we can love some
what better the God and Father of all, and in Him love
and serve all our brethren. This short life will soon be
over: ’ere it has passed away may we have helped for
ward some we love to thoughts more holy, more truthful,
more happy, more grand, more beautiful than super
stition.—Amen. So be it.
��NOTES.
.
(1) The aggregations which cluster around the memory of a
great character vary with the traditions and characteristics of
the people who are the grateful recipients of his benefits. If
Jesus had been born in Athens, Rome, Mexico, or India, the
mythological legends created by credulous affection to enshrine
his life, and embellish his teaching, would have taken their
character from some superstition or philosophy pervading in
the locality. Early biographies published in other countries
would, in all probability, combine their national conceptions
with those of the country of his birth. Thus in the three
earliest Gospels we find Jewish actions and teaching attributed
to Jesus, and genealogies tracing his descent from David and
Abraham. He is a Jew of Jewish origin, a miraculous Messiah,
a Theist teaching the pure monotheism which was the highest
development of Jewish religious thought. Those three Gos
pels, although varying in many important details, are similar
in general tone and scope. The Fourth Gospel not only intro
duces special variations and contradictions, but is essentially
different in its conception of the teaching and spirit of Jesus.
That Gospel, first named by Irenaeus, who died a.d. 203, was
probably compiled by a Christian of Ephesus, perhaps John
the Presbyter, with the help of traditions, and perhaps MSS.,
bearing the name of John the Evangelist. Ephesus was one
of the towns in which dominated the mystical Platonic Philo
sophy, as modified by Philo the Jew, about the time of the
birth of Jesus; therefore the writer surrounds Jesus with two
aggregations, the Judaic and the Platonic. Our Poets
personify “Fear,” “Hope,” “Charity,” “Envy,” “Melan
choly.” The Platonists not only personified, but considered
that all existing things had an original idea substantially
B
�18
Notes.
abiding in the mind of God, in whom was moreover a faculty
•or power whereby He arranged the ideas after which He
moulded all things. The “ Logos ” (i.e., “ Power,” “ Wisdom,”
-or “Word”) was this faculty existing in the Divine Soul, and
in different degrees manifesting itself in great and good men.
Thus Philo calls Moses “ the Divine Logos,” the “ law-giving
Logos,” the “ supplicating Logos (alluding to his intercession
for the Jews).” Aaron he calls the “Sacred Logos.” He
repeatedly calls the Jewish High Priest the “Logos.” He calls
good men the “ Logos.” The attribute in God which fills,
inspires, and manifests itself in men, he thus describes “The
Logos is the eldest creation of God, the Eternal Father,
eldest son, God’s image, mediator between God and the world,
the highest angel, the second God, the High Priest, the Recon
ciler, Intercessor for the world and men, whose manifestation is
especially visible in the history of the Jewish people.” And Philo
thus addresses his Jewish readers : “ If you are not yet worthy
to be denominated a Son of God, be earnest to put on the
graces of His First Begotten Logos, the most ancient . . .
for if we are not prepared to be esteemed children of
God, we may, at all events, be thus related to the most
Holy Logos . . . for the most ancient Logos is the image
of God.” Philo personifies “ Wisdom and Goodness,” but
he does not seem to regard them as real Persons, but only as
“ Ideas ” in the divine mind, which breathe forth into the soul
of men. Thus a Platonic Jew writing a memoir of Jesus
amongst the disciples of Philo in Ephesus, amongst people
familiar with the language regarding wisdom in “ Ecclesiasticus,” “ Wisdom,” &c. Writing, moreover, with a controversial
object, as he affirms (ch. xx. 31), instead of giving any genea
logy or nativity of Jesus, commences his narrative with the
verses we may perhaps best render thus: “ In the beginning was
the wisdom, and the wisdom was with God, and God was the
wisdom. This wasin the beginningwithGod. All things through
it rose into being, and without it arose not even one thing which
has arisen. In it is life, and the life was the light of men, and the
light shines on in the darkness, and the darkness did not
�Notes.
J9
apprehend it............................................ The true light which
enlightens every man, continued coming into the world. . .
. . It came to its own peculiar [home] and its own peculiar
[people] received it not................................... And the wisdom
became flesh [was manifested in a man], and tabernacled
amongst us.............................No one has ever seen God: the
only begotten son [i.e., Wisdom, the Logos], who is upon the
bosom of the Father, declared Him.”
How the language reminds us of Philo’s apostrophe to wis
dom or Logos, as “ the assessor of God prior to all creatures,
a needful companion of deity, joint originator with Him of all
things.” Origen, who died a.d. 253, and Eusebius, who died
A d. 340, notice that as there is no article in the Greek before
the word God, the signification is “ and the wisdom was a
God,” an epithet frequently applied in the Sacred' writings to
designate judges, authorised teachers, commissioned rulers,
angels, and those Beings adored by Gentile nations. (Ex.gr.~)
“ God judgeth amongst the gods,” “ I have said, ye are gods,”
“Thou shalt not revile the gods.” Again, Origen, although
maintaining the pre-existence of all souls, and that emanations
from the deity, like the rays of light from the sun penetrate
into the dark chambers of the human heart, to enlighten and
to abide, and believing that Jesus must have received such
divine in-dwelling light of wisdom, yet disclaims utterly the
superstition which was then rapidly advancing, and which pro
fessed to limit such to Jesus as exceptional and exclusive of
others. “ The great body of those who are considered as
believers, knowing nothing but Jesus Christ, thinking that the
Logos appearing in a man is the whole of the Logos, are
acquainted with Christ only according to the flesh.”
The Platonic idea of the Logos moulding the souls of good
men and dwelling in them, was often interwoven with the
Pythagorean doctrine of the pre-existence of souls, and in
that combination is attributed to Jesus in the Fourth Gospel
(though never in the earlier Gospels) ex. gr. John viii. 58.
.
(2) There are many passages adduced from the OldTestament
to confirm the popular idea of the deification of Jesus ; someB2
�1O
Notes.
times by adaptation, sometimes by referring to Jesus, passages
wherein the Jewish nation is personified and individualised.
Thus, in Isaiah, all the words applied by Trinitarian commen
tators to a suffering Messiah, regard the sufferings of “ God’s
servant Israel,” the Jewish nation’s sufferings “ expiating ” the
national sins, “ moving God to compassion,” and preluding an
immediate and triumphant restoration. In such sense those
passages were understood by the Jews at the tjme and since,
and it is only by artifices of mistranslation that the meaning is
perverted, ex. gr., “ a virgin shall conceive and bear a son,’*
should be “the young woman ” (probably Isaiah’s wife) “ will
conceive and bear a son.” The birth of his other sons, and
the names imparted to them, had signified events just to occur,
the birth of this one, named Emanuel, was to signify the
speedy deliverence of the Jews from the invading kings.
.
(3) A few detached and casual texts are relied on by Trini
tarians as the basis of their belief in the deity of Jesus, ex. gr.
Thomas the Apostle, who did not believe in the bodily resur
rection, is described as seeing Jesus alive, and, just as we ex
claim in surprise “ Good God,” so Thomas exclaimed “ My
Master! my God.” The Apostle who had, up to that moment,
supposed the statement of the resurrection to be a mere “ idle
woman’s tale,” cannot, by feeling the mangled side of Jesus,
have all at once arrived at a belief heretofore unexpected and
unasked, namely, that Jesus was not only the Messiah but the
God of the Universe. People acquainted with ecclesiastical
history do not attach much importance to the “ traditions ” of
the first six centuries, whereby the deity of Jesus was esta
blished—but Keble, in his Oxford Sermons, says most truly:
“ I need hardly remind you of the unquestioned historical fact
that the very Nicene Creed itself, to which, perhaps, of all
formulae we are most indebted for our sound belief in the proper
divinity of the Son of God—even this creed had its origin,
not from the Scriptures, but from tradition.”
We now derive our conceptions of God from the human soul.
God is to the universe what our soul is to our body; therefore the
higher our idea of man the higher our idea of God. But nations in
�Notes.
21
their infancy worshipped God piecemeal, or portions of nature
or a human form. Hence Paganism, Brahmahism, and Budd
hism had their incarnations, Judaism had no incarnation, but
Jehovah was regarded as a man who could talk, eat, walk
about, be angry and pleased, and take sides like a man.
When the Greek and Latin Bishops had, after some cen
turies, got the dogma into a definite form, the Scriptures
provided a few questionable passages which were useful for
the defence of a foregone conclusion. If we include amongst
such the passages interpolated, corrupted, and mistranslated,
the only subject for wonder is that so tremendous a dogma
should have so little to appeal to. Amongst the corrupted
texts, we would allude to 1 Tim. iii. 16, wherein the word
“ God ” is spurious. In Acts xx. 28, where the true reading is
“ Church of the Master ” and not Church of “ God.”
Amongst mistranslations, we might advert to Phil. ii. 5,
“ thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” This is
deemed by Trinitarians one of their very few decisive passages,
though even as it stands it is not worth much, for it would
be absurd to speak of “ God thinking it not robbery to be
equal with God.” The expression that Christ was “ in the
form of God,” or “ as God,” or the “ image of God,” does not
seem to imply anything more than when it is said to a child,
“ You must look on your parents as representing God to you.”
On the dogma of the deity of Jesus rests the Papacy, the
sacramental system, ecclesiastical exclusiveness, the denun
ciations of I Heresy,” the atonement, and all the numerous
doctrines which form one or other of the forms of orthodoxy ;
and yet that stupendous dogma rests upon only a few inci
dental texts.
(4) Prayer to Jesus is nowhere enjoined in the New Testa
ment ; and yet it could not, according to the orthodox theory,
be a matter of indifference. It was either to be done, or it
was not to be done. The introduction of a new object for
prayer was a vast change; it demanded special directions, so
that the two objects of prayer might retain what were proper
for each: no such explanations exist; no precept for its
�22
Notes,
observance. There are allusions to those blessings of which
Jesus Christ was deemed the minister to men—ex gr. “ Grace
through Jesus Christ,” “ the Grace of Jesus Christ.” There
are allusions to the interest which Jesus was supposed to
exhibit towards his disciples on earth, but nothing implying
prayer to him as God. There is no evidence that the' las t
words of Stephen, in which he prayed for his murderers, were
addressed to Christ.
But one portion of his speech was spoken to Jesus, who
(according to the narrative) was standing before him, and as
his friend and master could be asked therefore to receive his
dying breath.
(5) Suppose Jesus to have been miraculously born, to have
healed the sick, raised the dead, ascended into heaven, and
helped his followers from his heavenly abode—such miracles
would not prove him to be any greater than those men to
whom similar powers are attributed iu the Old Testament.
(6) All Religions surround their Infant Gods with similar
legends. Thus, in the sacred books of the Buddhists, we read
that, when Buddha, the God-man was born, “the Holy King,
the Grand Being, turning His eyes towards the East, regarded
the vast host of the angels, Brahmas and Devas, Asuras,
Granharvas, Repamas, and Garudas, and they rained flowers
and offerings upon him, and bowed in adoration, praising him
and crying, “ Behold the excellent Lord, to whom none can be
compared, to whom there is no superior; and the ten thousand
worlds quaked, and the Universe was illumined with an
exceeding bright light.” Of Confucius it is written, “ He may
be compared to heaven and earth in their supporting and
containing all things; he may be compared to the four seasons
in their alternating progress, to the sun and moon in their
successive shining. He is the Equal of Heaven. Call him an
Ideal man, how earnest is he! Call him an abyss, how deep I
Call him Heaven, how vast 1 ” When Mohammed was born, we
are told in the sacred legends of the Moslems “ that a bright
light issued from the breast of his mother, illumined all Arabia,
and then, penetrating into Paradise, caused 70,000 palaces of
�Notes.
23
pearls and rubies to spring into being; that, when he was
three years of age, two angels opened his side, took out his
heart, pressed from it the black drops of sin, replacing them
with the light of prophecy.” When Jesus was born, we are
told, in the sacred legends of the Christians, that “ a star left
its station in the heavens to indicate his birthplace, kings of
unknown lands travelled, with miraculous speed, to lay gifts
at his feet, angels filled the air with their songs, making the
mountain sides radiant with light. That child of Nazareth is
described, in the theological legends of later followers, as
eternal, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent, sinless, as
Creator and Preserver of the Universe, as the head of the
Spiritual World, forgiver of sins, final Judge and Rewarder,
in all things equal with God.” Thus does superstition com
press God into a man, and elevate a man into a God.
(7) Since men have learned the vastness of the Creation,
and the antiquity of the world, the dogma of the deity of
Jesus has become more incredible. Scholars admit that it
cannot be proved out of the Scriptures in any way calculated
to satisfy those who know the ignorance existing as to the
authorship of those Scriptures, their authority, originals, and
translations. Roman Catholics admit that it is impossible to
prove anything certain out of the Scriptures, therefore they
assert that the deity of Je3us, like all other dogmas, can be
only accepted on the authority of the Church ; but the autho
rity of the Church has declared that infallibility rests in the
mind of the Pope whenever he intends to use his infallibility.
But how is the infallibility of the Pope proved ? By the
words of Jesus Christ. And yet those very words can be
accepted by Greeks, Protestants, and Theists, who cannot see
in them any assertion of the modern Roman doctrine. Thus
infallibility rests upon disputed texts in books of uncertain
date and uncertain origin; therefore it can never become, to
any individual, anything more than a probable opinion liable
to error—an opinion which, only three years ago, was deemed
by all the most cultured Roman Catholics to be absurd,
unproved, dangerous, unhistoric, uncatholic.
�24
Notes.
(8) From the intuitions of the human mind ; from its
reasonings, feelings, and aspirations ; from its sense of right
and wrong; from all these combined in the experiences of
mankind, and presented to us in the history of humanity, we
can obtain a Religion of Life and of Hope, of discipline and
trustful repose; such, held with diffidence, with earnestness,
with reverence, with fortitude, and with tenderness, revealing
itself in harmony with science, and with our highest moral
and spiritual aspirations, gathering into itself from all
Churches, Sects, and Scriptures, whatever is of universal
application, will keep evolving itself to the soul of man, and
presenting to us as much of certainty as is obtainable in the
ordinary affairs of life, why demand for the future a certainty
of a kind essentially differing from what is adequate for our
daily actions and our daily hopes.
The only theory of God’s moral government which conforms
to our sense of justice in presence of the various opposing
beliefs held by men equally good, truth loving, and anxious,
is that what is really important is attainable by all—namely,
to be truthful in word and act to whatever we think, to strive
to think as correctly as we can, and to practise according to
our light and means, the best to which we see our way. Such
is the best and the happiest religion.
The Author of this sermon will be glad to communi
cate to inquirers, books adapted to aid their researches
into matters which could only be glanced at in these
pages.
The reader is earnestly advised to study the works
of James Martineau, Francis Newman, Theodore Parker,
Hennell, Frances Power Cobbe, Dr Vance Smith, and
those catalogued on the following pages, which can be
procured from the Publisher.
�INDEX
TO
THOMAS SCOTT’S PUBLICATIONS,
alphabetically arranged.
The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage sta/mps to Mr Thomas
Scott, 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Boad, Upper Norwood,
London, S.N.
Price.
Post-free.
s. cl.
ABBOT, FRANCIS E„ Editor of ‘Index,’ Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A.
The Impeachment
of Christianity. With Letters from Miss Frances
P. Cobbe and Professor F. W. Newman, giving their Reasons for not
calling themselves Christians
-OS
Truths for the Times
•
•
-03
ANONYMOUS.
A.I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II.,
and III. 6d. each Part
-16
A Few Self-Contradictions of the Bible
- 1 0
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism
- 0 6
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of
Necessity”
-06
On Public Worship
-03
Questions to which the Orthodox are Earnestly Requested to Give
Answers ------01
Sacred History as
a
Branch of Elementary Education.
Part I.—Its Influence on the Intellect. Part II.—Its Influence on the
Development of the Conscience. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
The Church and its Reform. A Reprint - 1 0
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth
- 0 6
The Opinions of Professor David F. Strauss
- 0 6
The Twelve Apostles
-06
Via Catholica; or, Passages from the Autobiography of a Country
Parson. Part I. -13
Woman’s Letter -03
BARRISTER, A.
Notes
on
Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ
-
-
- 0 6
-
-
- 0 3
BASTARD, THOMAS H0RL00K.
Scepticism
and
Social Justice
-
-
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications,
11
Price.
Post-free.
BENEFICED CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation - 1 1
The Evangelist and the Divine - 1 0
The Gospel of the Kingdom
- 0 6
BENTHAM, JEREMY.
The Church
of
England Catechism Examined. A Reprint
-10
BERNSTEIN, A.
Origin of the Legends of
Critically Examined -
Abraham, Isaac,
Jacob
-10
-
-
=
BROOK, W. 0. CARR.
Beason versus Authority BROWN, GAMALIEL.
An Appeal to the Preachers
Sunday Lyrics
The New Doxology
•
and
-
-
.
-
-03
Creeds -
-
- 0 3
-03
- 0 3
of all the
-
-
-
-
CARROLL, Rev. W. G., Rector of St Bride’s, Dublin.
The Collapse
of the
by the Orthodox -
Faith; or, the Deity of Christ as now taught
-
-
-
-
-
-06
CLARK, W. G., M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church
of England ”
-06
CLERGYMAN OF THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND.
An Examination of Canon Liddon’s Bampton Lectures
Letter and Spirit Rational Piety and Prayers for Fine Weather
The Analogy of Nature and Religion—Good and Evil The Question o*f Method, as affecting Religious Thought
-
- 0 6
-06
- 0 3
- 0 6
- 0 3
COBBE, Miss F. P.
Letter
on
Christian Name. (See Abbot)
CONWAY, MONCURE D.
The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. With Portrait
The Voysey Case -
-
- 0 6
-06
COUNTRY PARSON, A.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and
the Creeds,—Their Sense and their
Non-Sense. Parts I., II., and III. 6d. each Part
- 1 6
COUNTRY VICAR, A.
Criticism the Restoration of Christianity, being a Review of a
Paper by Dr Lang
-
The Bible for Man, not Man
-
for the
-
Bible
-
-06
- 0 6
-
-
-
-
•
-
CRANBROOK, The late Rev. JAMES.
On the Formation of Religious Opinions On the Hindrances to Progress in Theology
The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought
0 3
0 3
0 3
F. H. I.
Spiritual Pantheism
-
-
-
-06
FOREIGN CHAPLAIN.
The Efficacy
of
Prayer. A Letter to Thomas Scott
-
- 0 3
�iii
Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
Price.
Post-free.
s. d.
FORMER ELDER IN A SCOTCH CHURCH.
On Religion
....
-06
GELDART, Rev. E. M.
The Living God
-
’
-
-
-
•
-0 3
-
-
-
-
-
-03
-
-04
GRAHAM, A. D., and F. H.
On Faith
-
-
HANSON, Sir R. D., Chief-Justice of South Australia.
Science and Theology
-
-
-
-
HARE, The Right Rev. FRANCIS, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of
Chichester.
The Difficulties
the Scriptures
and
Discouragements which Attend the Study of
-
-
-
-
-
-
-06
HINDS, SAMUEL, D.D., late Bishop of Norwich.
Annotations on the Lord’s Prayer. (See Scott’s Practical Remarks)
Another Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely
on, if we cannot Rely on the Bible ? ” (See Professor Newman’s
Reply) *
-06
A Reply to the Question, “ Apart from Supernatural Revela
tion, what is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death ? ” 0 6
A Reply to the Question, “ Shall I Seek Ordination in the
Church of England?”
- 0 6
Free Discussion of Religious Topics. Part I., is. Part II., Is. 6d. 2 6
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend
- 0 6
HOPPS, Rev. J. PAGE.
Thirty-Nine Questions
Portrait -
on
-
-
the
Thirty-Nine Articles.
-
-
-
-
With
-0 3
JEVONS, WILLIAM.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the
Present Age. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
- 1 0
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine
. Revelation Considered
- 0 6
The Prayer Book adapted to the Age - 0 3
KALISCH, M., Ph.D.
of the Past and the Future. Reprinted from Part I. of
his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait
- 1 0
Theology
KIRKMAN, The Rev. THOMAS P., Rector of Croft, Warrington.
Church Cursing and Atheism
-
- 1 0
On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. With Portrait. 6d. each Part 1 0
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. In Three Parts. 6d. each Part - 1 6
LAKE, J. W.
The Mythos of the Ark
-
-
-
-
-'-06
LA TOUCHE, J. D., Vicar of Stokesay, Salop.
The Judgment
Mr Voysey
of the
-
Committee of Council in the Case of
-
-
-
-
-
-03
-
-
-06
- 0 6
-
- 1 0
LAYMAN, A, and M.A. of Trinity College, Dublin.
Law and the Creeds
Thoughts on Religion and the Bible
-
M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge.
Pleas
for
Free Inquiry. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part
�Index to Thomas Scott's Publications.
iv
Price.
Post-free.
MAOFIE, MATT.
Religion Viewed
Universe
as
-
Devout Obedience to the Daws
-
-
-
-
of the
-
- 0 G
MAITLAND, EDWARD.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education; or, the Use and Abuse
-
of the Bible in the Schoolroom
-
-
- 1 6
- 0 6
- 0 6
Revelation -
- 0 6
-
How to Complete the Reformation. With Portrait
The Utilisation of the Church Establishment
-
M.P., Letter by.
The Dean of Canterbury
on
Science
and
NEALE, EDWARD VANSITTART.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ?
- 0 6
Genesis Critically Analysed, and continuously arranged; with Intro
ductory Remarks
-
-
-
-
-
-
The Mythical Element in Christianity The New Bible Commentary and the Ten Commandments
-10
- 1 0
-03
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
Against Hero-Making in Religion
- o 6
James and Paul .
-00
Letter on Name Christian. (See Abbot) On the Causes of Atheism With Portrait - 0 6
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism; and On the Galla
Religion
-06
Reply to a Letter from an Evangelical Lay Preacher
- 0 3
The Bigot and the Sceptic
- 0 6
The Controversy about Prayer - 0 3
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines
- 0 3
The Religious Weakness of Protestantism
- 0 7
The True Temptation of Jesus. With Portrait
- 0 6
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil
- 0 3
OLD GRADUATE.
Remarks
on
Paley’s Evidences -
-
-
-
- 0 6
-
- 0 6
OXLEE, the Rev. JOHN.
A Confutation of the Diabolarchy
-
-
PADRE OF THE ESTABLISHED CHURCH.
The Unity
of the
Faith among
all
Nations
-
-
- 0 6
-
-
- 0 6
PARENT AND TEACHER, A.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ?
PHYSICIAN, A.
by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and
Philosophical. Parts I. and II. 6d. each Part - 1
The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of
A Dialogue
our Age. Part I.—Genesis -
-
-
-
0
- 1 6
PRESBYTER ANGLICANUS.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the
Clergy of the Church of England
-
-
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing
-
on
ROBERTSON, JOHN, Coupar-Angus.
Intellectual Liberty
The Finding of the Book -
ROW, A. JYRAM.
Christianity
and
-
-
-
Education in India.
St George’s Hall, London, Nov. 12,1871
-
-
Education
- 0 6
0 6
o 6
-20
A Lecture delivered at
0 6
�Index to Thomas Scott’s Publications.
Price.
Post-free.
s. d.
SCOTT, THOMAS.
Basis of a New Reformation
-09
Commentators and Hierophants; or, The Honesty of Christian
Commentators. In Two Parts. 6d. each Part
-
1 0
-
-
Miracles and Prophecies -06
Original Sin
-06
Practical Remarks on “The Lord’s Prayer”
- 0 6
The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in
its Bearing on the Truth of Christianity
- 0 6
The English Life of Jesus. A New Edition
- 4 4
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society - 0 6
STATHAM, F. REGINALD.
Rational Theology. A Lecture
-
-
-
-
- 0 3
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and
Defended by T. L. Strange
- 0 6
Clerical Integrity
-03
Communion with God
-03
The Bennett Judgment
-03
The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?”
0 6
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed
2 6
SZMONDS, J. ADDINGTON.
The Renaissance
of
Modern Europe
-
-
-
03
-
TAYLOR, P. A., M.P.
Realities
--------
VOYSEY, The Rev. CHARLES.
A Lecture on Rationalism
A Lecture on the Bible An Episode in the History
On Moral Evil
-
-
of
-
-
-
-
-
-
- 0 6
-06
Religious Liberty. With Portrait 0 6
-
-06
W. E. B.
An Examination
of
Some Recent Writings
about Immortality
- 0 6
WHEELWRIGHT, the Rev. GEORGE.
Three Letters on the Voysey Judgment and the Christian
Evidence Society’s Lectures - 0 6
WILD, GEO. J., LL.D.
Sacerdotalism
-
«
-
0 6
WORTHINGTON, The Rev. W. R.
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion -06
Two Essays : On the Interpretation of the Language, of The Old
Testament, and Believing without Understanding - 0 6
ZERFFI, G. G., Ph.D.,
Natural Phenomena and their Influence on Different Religious Systems 0 3
�Since printing the preceding List the follozving Pamphlets
have been published.
Price.
Post-free.
BENEFICED CLERGYMAN, WIFE OF A.
On the Deity of Jesus of Nazareth. Parts I. and II. Price Six
pence each Part -
-
-
-
-
-
-10
-
- 0 3
MACKAY, CHARLES, LL.D.
The Souls of
the
-
Children
NEWMAN, Professor F. W.
On
the
Historical Depravation
of
Christianity
PHYSICIAN, A.
The Pentateuch, in Contrast with the Science and Moral Sense of our
Age. Part II.—Exodus, Section I. -
-
-
-
-06
STRANGE, T. LUMISDEN, late Judge of the High Court of Madras.
The Christian Evidence Society
-
-
-
- 0 3
SUFFIELD, the Rev. ROBERT RODOLPH.
The Resurrection -
-
-
-
-
.
-03
-03
Prayer -
-
.
-
-
-0 6
CANTAB, A.
Jesus versus Christianity
DUPUIS, from the French of.
-
-
-
-
- 0 6
Christianity a Form of the great Solar Myth -
-
- 0 9
-
-06
Is Jesus God?
-
W. E. B.
The Province
of
BRAY, CHARLES.
Illusion and Delusion
-
-
-
-
-
-
ANON.
Our First Century
Via Catholica. Part II.
-
-
-06
-13
-
MACLEOD, JOHN.
Religion :
its
Place in Human Culture -
e
-
- 0 6
PRINTED EY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET, W.
��
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Is Jesus God? a sermon preached on Trinity Sunday, at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, near London
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Suffield, Robert Rodolph
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 24, v. [1] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4 and the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Publisher's list on numbered pages at the end. Printed by G.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, Haymarket, London. Includes 8 pages of notes.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1873
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4867
CT122
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
God
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Is Jesus God? a sermon preached on Trinity Sunday, at the Free Christian Church, Croydon, near London), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
Morris Tracts
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/7d5ad1da3deeb453371f87a808d689bc.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VZEYj8RsilFmXzxakvYyoVvMSdBSy1tyO51ezFOEl2zMTsAFRmuWHVdUCbmlMcUtHji93hOXSHxz9XX9Csiq0XsPuwkRLqkWcPMKJ-paHihcUbrql1hXjfh8JNsqCD%7EkN4p1FTudkFsCbxaDhx%7E7JTnXqlduKc%7EQmwC2Jn1bG-YfHfVq7WSzez67CvmWDT-CYRkoLDxh3qXXgCOGFK3-U0OJzZTWwCCuw%7EiwgSXnP6m3LxGsDx-lijhlb7TnF3KGJ4mOakppxcTSUas7ka%7E46ytTAr45HzsLwaYw-B6MXT0B%7ExWS9fiIEWQcfxA%7EiWpSDTNgczU%7EbHqaKUq4McrgEA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d0cd0ef6f3a68d561f563863443114ff
PDF Text
Text
CHRIST AND OSIRIS
BY
J. S.
STUART-GLENNIE,
M. A.
Reprinted by permission from,
‘IN THE MORNINGLAND.’
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
II THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD, UPPER NORWOOD,
LONDON, S.E.
1876.
Price Threepence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET,
HAYMARKET.
�CHRIST
AND
OSIRIS.
“ Thou hast conquered, 0 pale Galilean; the world has grown
grey from thy breath ;
We have drunken of things Lethean, and fed on the fulness
of death.
0 lips that the live blood faints in, the leavings of racks and
rods!
O ghastly glories of saints, dead limbs of gibbeted gods !
Though all men abase them before you in spirit, and all knees
bend,
I kneel not, neither adore you, but standing, look to the end.
*****
Though before thee the throned Cytherean be fallen, and
hidden her head,
Yet thy kingdom shall pass, Galilean, thy dead shall go down
to the dead.” *
eflecting- here, on the Temple-roof at
Karnak, on the general results of our
Egyptian studies, we are first of all struck
with what I may call the Christian character of
Osirianism. But before proceeding to point this
out, and to state the hypothesis which this Christian
character of Osirianism suggests, it may be desir
able to offer a few remarks on the outward, and
hence more vulgarly appreciated characteristics of
the Egyptian religion. For, in amazement at any
likening of Osirianism to Christianism, or of Christianism to Osirianism, many readers may, as if in
R
* Swinburne, Poems and Ballads, Hymn to Proserpine, pp. 79-80.
�6
Christ and Osiris.
settlement of any suggestion even of a causal relation
between Osirianism and Christianism, ask, ‘ Were not
the Egyptians, as a matter of fact, idolaters, and
worshippers, indeed, of the most grotesque and
monstrous idols ? ’ But let us understand what
idolatry means. Possibly, you who put this question
may be more of an idolater than were the ancient
Egyptians when they first created their Gods.
Idolatry is ceremonial worship when the meaning of
the ceremonies and symbols is lost. We are helped
to the understanding of this by the study of language,
in its first formations. Names, as a class of signs,
*
are themselves but a kind of symbols. In the
formation of a language, they are at first uttered
certainly not without a meaning ; they certainly are
the attempt to denote some thing, or express some
want, hitherto nameless, unutterable. Yet these
names, at first so meaningful, may in time so com
pletely lose their original meaning, as to become the
terminations of a declension, f So symbols, animal
headed deities, and others. What if the symbol, in
later times, so lost its meaning as to be itself wor
shipped ? Originally it had carried the mind from
itself to that which it signified. And as, in Lan
guage, ‘ the formation of substantive nouns is the
first stage of personifying God
so, in Religion,
the creation of symbols is the first stage of idolatry.
We shall hereafter have occasion to consider idol
creation more fully, and from other points of view.
Here I will only remark, that a reference to the
idolatry of the Egyptians is unfortunate, if it is
intended thereby to disprove the likeness of Osirian* ‘ A name is a word taken at pleasure to serve for a mark which may
raise in our mind a thought like to some thought we had before,
and which, being pronounced to others, may be to them a sign of what
thought the speaker had, or had not, before in his mind.’—Hobbes,
Computation or Logic, ch. it., cited by Mill, System of Logic, vol. II. p. 23.
t See Miiller, Lectures on the Science of Language.
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 566.
�Christ and Osiris.
7
ism to Christianism. For we shall find that it is
just in comparing these two Creeds in this matter of
idolatry, that — when we set Yahvehism between
them—their likeness comes out most strongly—the
religion of Abraham, whether as Judaism, or as
Mohammedanism, acting as a foil, and bringing out
with startling clearness, at once, the Osirian cha
racter of Christianism, and the Christian character of
Osirianism.
2. But is the Animal-worship of the Egyptians next
objected against any comparison of Osirianism with
Christianism, or any hypothesis with respect to the
origination of the latter in a transformation of the
former ? Well, it is admitted that that exaggerated
care for animals which becomes a superstitious wor
ship of them is not a feature of Christian religious
emotion. But in the Animal-worship which—pro
bably derived from an aboriginal African element in
the population — was, soon after the time of
*
Menes, incorporated with Osirianism throughout the
Empire, there should seem to have been an idea
which modern Science tends more and more clearly
to establish—the identity, namely, of the principle of
life in all its manifestations.f ‘ And what is this,’
asks Bunsen, £ but a specific adaptation of that con
sciousness of the divinity of Nature, which is implied
in all the religious consciousness of the Old World ?’J
The doctrine of transmigration thus became a sacred
link between animal and human life. And ‘ the
community between the human and anima,! soul
being once admitted, we can understand how the
Egyptians a^ last arrived at the idea of worshipping
in animals a living manifestation of Divinity.’§ But
if a similar doctrine is not found in Christianism,*
§
* Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 637
t See Spencer, Principles of Biology, and Principles of Psychology
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 640.
§ Ibid. vol. iv. p. 641.
�Christ and Osiris.
one is tempted to say that the want of it is much to
be regretted. For there have been, and even still
are, few worse features in Christian Civilization
than its apathy to animal suffering. And it is very
*
noteworthy that it was the great Apostle of the
Utilitarian School of Moralists who, in that very
year from which dates a new period of the Modern
Revolution, 1789, introduced into European Ethics
the consideration of1 the interests of other animals.’!"
So. likewise, a new care for, and new appreciation of
animals is one of the characteristic features of
Comte s conception of the New Religion of Hu
manity.J And if, at length, men are beginning
again to become sympathetically aware that other
animals also besides themselves feel pain, and that it
is shameful and dastardly to inflict pain unnecessarily
upon them ; if there is now some hope that
Christian f sports ’ may, at length, be done away
with, and animal-barbarities generally ; and if,
in realising that fact of physical kinship with our
Elder Brethren, which Science affirms, and Chris
tianity scouts, there is being devoloped some nobler
sympathy also with them—this, at least, it must be
admitted, is certainly not owing to any doctrine in
Christianism that can be paralleled in Osirianism.
3. The considerations thus suggested on the c Idola
try and on the ‘ Animal-worship ’ of the Egyptians
may, I trust, prepare us candidly now to consider the
more essential doctrines of Osirianism—those doc
fnri^^E1\ristiU1.Crkelty ffenera!ly’we must not recall the gladia
torial comhats of the Roman amphitheatre, without recalling also the
heretic burnings of every chief town in Christendom. Noris Classic
ChrkH^o-1®^6 t]udg(?d
th,e days of lts decline: but rather, as also
aIps;1tYdlza!10n» by the days of its prime. And that the Middle
♦Ur ,!16
f-,lristian civilization is proved by the fact, that
” Ament Fhlch ha?l SCce then> modified Christianity has tended
more and more to sweep it, both as a doctrinal and as a social system,
I
Morals and Legislation, ch.
+ bee Mill, Comte and Positivism,
xvii.
�Christ and Osiris.
9
trines which are so remarkably similar to the great
dogmas of Christianism. And with respect to what
the great religious doctrines of the Egyptians really
were, we are not now in any doubt. Eor one of the
grandest achievements of Modern Science has been
*
the translation of their Funeral Ritual, the ‘ Todtenbuch,’ or ‘ Book of the Dead,’ as Lepsius called it, or
as it calls itself, the ‘ Departure into Light.’f It
belongs to Bunsen’s fourth class of those Sacred
Books which would form collectively the Bible of the
ancient Egyptians, and is scarcely posterior to 3,000
years before our era.J For, as Bunsen points out,
we have a very remarkable proof that the origin of
the prayers and hymns of this Ritual belongs pro
bably to the Pre-Menite Dynasty of Abydos, between
3100 and 4500 B.C., in the fact that we find one of
these hymns, § not in its original simplicity, but
already mixed up with glosses and commentaries,
inscribed on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept of the
eleventh dynasty. This monumental text agrees
with the printed text of the Turin papyrus. And
though the first year of the eleventh dynasty, which
lasted forty-three years, cannot be placed earlier
than 2782 B.c. yet, if we consider the many stages*
§
* ‘ The interpretation of the extinct languages of Egypt and Central
Asia will ever rank as one of the distinguishing features of the nine
teenth century.’—Birch, in Bunsen’s Egypt's Place, vol. v. p. ix.
t Or ‘ Manifestation to Light,’ according to Champollion and Dr.
Birch. The complete translation by the latter was only published with
the fifth volume of Bunsen's Egypt in 1867. But I had with me at
Thebes the previous volumes, besides Wilkinson’s Ancient Egyptians
and other works ; and I had the advantage of perusing and making
copious extracts from the translation of an American Egyptologer who
was residing at Luxor. Even Dr. Birch’s translation, however, must
be considered as representing the state of hieroglyphical knowledge
rather twenty years ago than now—so long was its publication, owing
to various causes, delayed. The translation of the ‘ Tod.tenbuch,’ to
which students must now refer, is that by Brugsch, now in course of
publication. My references, however, here, will be to Dr. Birch’s Trans
lation, as probably more accessible to the majority of readers.
t Bunsen, Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 646.
§ It forms chapter xvii. of the Ritual. See Birch’s translation in
Egypt's Place, vol. v. pp. 172-80.
IT Compare Egypt's Place, vol. V. pp. 29, 88, and 94.
�io
Christ and Osiris.
that must have been passed through, before the
original hymn, learned by heart, and recited from
memory, became mixed-up with scholia in an nndivided sacred text, we cannot but date its composi
tion and primitive use many centuries anterior to
that dynasty in which we find it thus embedded in
explanations. This hymn implies not only the wor
ship of Osiris, but the whole system of doctrines
connected with his redeeming life on Earth, and
judicial office in Heaven. Yet an antiquity, even
greater than is thus witnessed-to, we are obliged to
assign to Osirianism, by the fact that the Osirismyth itself mentions ‘ Byblus (Gebal in Phoenicia) as
the place where Isis brought up the young Osiris.’*
And this derivation from Asia is further confirmed
by the universally admitted identity of ‘ the funda
mental ideas of the worship, and sacred ceremonials
of Adonis and Osiris.’f To the very earliest period,
then, of the history of Humanity, as the history of
Thought, we must carry back the ideas of the Osirian
Faith. And yet, we may possibly find in the sequel,
that it is but a transformed Osirianism that, to this
day, dominates Christendom.
4. Considered as a whole, the 1 Departure into Light ’
is a revelation in something of an epic, and even
occasionally dramatic form of the departure of the
Soul into the Other-world, of its judgment, and of
what is required of it, in order to its final beatific
reception by its Father Osiris. Its formularies may,
perhaps, best be arranged under such heads as the
following:—I. General Address. II. Address to each
of the Forty-two Assessors. III. Announcement of
Justification. IV. Telling the names of different
parts of the Temple. V. Blessings, &c.J According
to Egyptian notions, it was ‘ essentially an inspired
* Egypt's Place, vol. iv. p. 347.
f Ibid.
J Compare Birch’s introduction to his translation, Egypt's Place,
vol. v.
�Christ and Osiris.
ii
work; and the term Hermetic, so often applied by
profane writers to these books, in reality means
inspired. It is Thoth himself who speaks, and
reveals the will of the Gods, and the mysterious
nature of divine things to man.’* Portions of them
are expressly stated to have been written by the very
finger of Thoth himself, and to have been the com
position of a great God.f And in this, it may be
noted by the way, that we see an illustration of what,
in the Introduction, was pointed out as one of the
general characteristics of the First Age of Humanity,
namely, the authorlessness, for the most part, of
its Literature, and its attribution, to supernatural
sources. But sacred this Ritual was also esteemed
as ‘ assuring to the soul a passage from the Earth; a
transit through the purgatory and other regions of
the Dead; the entrance into the Empyreal Gate, by
which the souls arrived at the presence of God,
typified by the Sun ; the admission into the Bark, or
Orb of the Sun, ever traversing in brilliant light the
' liquid ether; and protection from the various Liersin-wait, or Adversaries, who sought to accuse,
destroy, or detain it in its passage, or destiny.’J
In this most ancient book of the Osirian Scriptures
there is, no doubt, not only a vast mass of unin
telligible ritualistic allusions, but evidence of gross
superstition. Not, however, without evidence of
this, are also the Christian Scriptures. And it must
be borne in mind that the Osirian Bible had not the
good fortune to be, in the formation of its canon,
purged, as was the Christian, of impurer, apocryphal
elements. Yet, notwithstanding this misfortune, the
religious tone of the Osirian Ritual is such as the
following brief extracts may serve, though inade
quately, to illustrate.
* Ibid. p. 133.
+ See chapter lxiv., Rubric.
j Birch in Egypt's Place, vol. V. p. 134.
�12
Christ and Osiris.
5. Very touching are some of the expressions in
which the Departed calls on Osiris to save him from
his Accusers, from the Lake of Fire, and from the
Tormentors. Addressing these with the noble bold
ness of great faith, ‘ says Osiris Anfanch . . . while
you strive against me, your acts against me are
against Osiris............... To strive against me, is
as against Osiris.’ Again: 1 Let me come, having
seen and passed, having passed the Gate to see my
Father Osiris. I have made way through the dark
ness to my Father Osiris. I am his beloved. I stab
the heart of Sut. I do the things of my Father
Osiris. I have opened every door in heaven and
earth. I am his beloved son. I have come from the
mummy, an instructed spirit.’ And again : ‘ says
Osiris Anfanch, save me, as thou savest what
belongs to thy word ; catch me up ; the Lord is God,
there is but one God for me (or, before the Lord of
Mankind, there is but one Lord for me).’ A passage,
this, which is but one of many proving the mono
*
theism of the better instructed, or more deeply
thinking, of those whom the narrow ignorance
of that Creed propagated by the Galilean Fishermen
sets down as 1 idolatrous heathens.’ He who is thus
represented as speaking in a certain stage of his
progress to the region of ‘ Sacred Repose, ’ is more
particularly described in the beginning of some
papyri as ‘ Osiris Anfanch of the true faith, born of
the lady Souhenchem of fair fame.’ The prefix to
the man’s name of that of God himself is the ‘ new
name ’ which every true believer receives after death.
In other passages the good man is even spoken of as an
Osiris. ‘ The Osiris lives, after he dies, like the sun
daily; for as the sun dies, and is born in the
morning, so the Osiris dies.’ And finally, as to that
immortality which is so ignorantly imagined to have
* See chap. tv. sect. iii.
�Christ and Osiris.
13
been 1 brought to light by the Gospel, ’ the Osiris
exclaims in another passage : 1 I do not die again in
the Region of Sacred Repose.’ And again. ‘ Who
soever does what belongs to him, visibly (individu
ally ?) his soul participates in Life Eternal.’ And
again. ‘ Plait for thyself a garland . . . thy life is
everlasting.’
6. But it is the central doctrine of Osirianism that
more particularly claims our attention.
‘ The
peculiar character of Osiris,’ says Sir Gardner
Wilkinson, ‘ his coming upon Earth for the benefit of
mankind, with the title of “Manifester of Good”
and “ Revealer of Truth his being put to death by
the Malice of the Evil One; his burial and Resurrec
tion, and his becoming the Judge of the Dead, are
the most interesting features of the Egyptian Reli
gion. This was the great mystery; and this myth
and his worship were of the earliest times and
universal in Egypt.’* And, with this central doc
trine of Osirianism, so perfectly similar to that of
Christianism, doctrines are associated precisely analo
gous to those associated in Christianism with its
central doctrine. In ancient Osirianism, as in
modern Christianism, the Godhead is conceived as a
Trinity, yet are the three Gods declared to be only one
God. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Chris
tianism, we find the worship of a Divine Mother and
Child. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Chris
tianism, there is a doctrine of Atonement. In ancient
Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the
vision of a Last Judgment, and Resurrection of the
Body. And finally, in ancient Osirianism, as in
modern Christianism, the sanctions of morality are a
Lake of Eire and tormenting Demons, on the one
hand, and on the other, Eternal Life in the presence
* Ancient Egyptians (Popular Edition), vol. i. p. 331.
second Series of the larger work, vol. 1. p. 320.
Compare
�14
Christ and Osiris.
of God. Is it possible, then, that such similarities of
doctrines should not raise the most serious questions
as to the relation of the beliefs about Christ to those
about Osiris ; as to the cause of this wonderful simi
larity of the doctrines of Christianism to those of
Osirianism; nay, as to the possibility of the whole
doctrinal system of Modern Orthodoxy being but a
transformation of the Osiris-myth ? But if so—you
logically argue with amazed incredulity—all the most
sacred dogmas of the Christian faith would be
proved to have originated but in the influence of a
4 heathen ’ religion—a religion over the scenes of
which we Christians ordinarily pass with the most
complacent contempt ? Nay, if so ; if the doctrines
cf Christianism had but such an origin; must not.
the Christian ‘ Revelation ’ be acknowledged utterly
worthless to prove the reality of any one of the
supernatural facts which its doctrines affirm—even a
Personal Immortality, for instance, or a Personal
God ?
7. Well, be the consequences what they may, we
must find out what is the fact. And there is certainly
no escape in the desperate hypothesis to which the
manifestly Christian character of Osirianism has
driven some to have recourse—the hypothesis that
these doctrines of Osirianism were, somehow or
other, themselves a ‘ supernatural revelation.’ For
the discovery of Osirianism is the discovery of the
missing link between Christianism and Heathenism
generally, the religions of the First Age of Hu
manity, or what I have termed Naturianism. It has
hitherto appeared not only a crime but a blunder,
not merely a blasphemy but a frivolity, to compare
the Christian doctrines of the Trinity, of the Incar
nation, and of the Death and Resurrection of Christ
with the similar doctrines of Naturian Religions.
But the doctrines of a Trinity, of an Incarnation,
and of the Death and Resurrection of a God-man are
�Christ and Osiris.
15
developed in Osirianism with such gravity, such
moral purity, and such splendour, that we cannot
hesitate to honour them by a comparison with these
doctrines as developed in Christianism. Yet, from
Osirianism the gradation is so gentle through the
whole series of Nature-worships down to the lowest,
that, having compared the story and worship of
Christ with the worship and myth of Osiris, we find
ourselves necessarily comparing the Christian story
and worship with the worship and myth of Dionysus,
nay, of Adonis, and of Thammuz,—of Thammuz,
Whose annual wound in Lebanon allured
The Syrian damsels to lament his fate,
In amorous ditties all a summer’s day.
*
And hence if, to support the common belief in the
supernatural origin of Christianism, it is concluded
that the manifestly similar and unquestionably earlier
doctrines of Osiria'nism had a supernatural origin;
then, as we thus find it impossible to draw a line
separating the highest of the Heathen religions from
the lowest, a supernatural origin must also be
supposed for all those Heathen religions in
which we find—and where do we not find ?—the
story of a divine man dying, and—though but to rise
again—‘ in amorous ditties ’ annually lamented.t
But so great are the interests at stake, that even an
hypothesis so wild as this, it may be attempted to
defend. For, as has just been suggested, if these
Heathen beliefs in the incarnation of a God-man, and
in Heaven and Hell, have no sort of supernatural
authority; and if Osirianism is, indeed, the missing
link that connects Christianism with every one of
* Milton, Paradise Lost.
f Arjve 7oa>r, Krflepeia,
cfipepov ’tcrxeo nopp-Giv.
Aet ere 7raAi^ /cAavom, 7raAtr eh %ros &Wo Saxpvtrai.
Bion, Epitaph, Adon,
�i6
Christ and Osiris.
these religions ; what authority is there for the
objective reality of any one of those supernatural
existences, belief in which is thus found to be common
to Christianism, and Heathenism generally ? An
attempt, therefore, will doubtless be made to prove
the supernatural and divine origin of Heathenism.
And truly, when we recall Christian denunciations of,
and missions to the ‘ Heathenwhen we find that
the essential doctrines of ‘ Heathenism ’ are, just as
in Christianism, a Trinity, an Incarnation, and a
Future State of Reward and Punishment; hence
that—as such doctrines can have no guarantee of
objective reality, except they have had a super
natural origin—all must have had such an origin, or
none; and hence that, to guarantee the validity of
their own beliefs, Christians must maintain the
divine origin of those of Heathenism; there is seen
such a profound and tragic irony in the situation that
we become more than ever attached to the study of
that sublime drama—the history of Man.
8. Any hope, however, of establishing a theory of
the supernatural origin of the doctrines of Osirianism,
how ‘ Christian ’ soever they may be, has had, I trust
the ground cut from under it, by the facts, in the
foregoing chapter brought together, in explanation of
these doctrines as myths. For, before any theory of
the supernatural origin of these doctrines can be
maintained, the facts must be met which were in the
foregoing chapter summarised as explanatory of the
origin of the myths of Naturianism. These facts
were, as will be remembered, first, those which define
the character of the spontaneity of Mind; secondly,
the facts of the conditions under which that spon
taneity worked in primaeval societies; and thirdly,
those explanations of modern spiritist conceptions
which confirm the theory by which we explain the
origin of primitive spiritist conceptions. Before any
rational attempt, therefore, any attempt worthy of
�Christ and Osiris.
17
scientific notice, can be made to account for the
Christian character of the doctrines of Osirianism,
and of the other ‘ Heathen ’ religions, by attributing
to them some sort of supernatural origin in a ‘ primi
tive revelationthose three great classes of facts,
psychological, economical, and physio-psychological,
in the foregoing chapter summarised, must be shown
to be, not only severally, but jointly inadequate to
explain, as not only of a natural, but as of a very low
natural origin, the formation of such doctrines as
those which give to Osirianism its Christian cha
racter. Nor are these the only facts which must be
met before a scientific hearing even can be
gained for any hypothesis that would give to the
doctrines, whether Christian or Osirian, of a Trinity,
a life, death, and resurrection of a God-man, and an
Other-world of Reward and Punishment, any sort of
supernatural origin, and hence any degree of authori
tative sanction. For besides the great classes of
facts just specified, those also must be met which, in
proving the conception of Mutual Determination to
be the true and ultimate conception of Causation,
show such hypotheses, as this of a supernatural
origin of these doctrines, to belong properly only to,
or to be derived from, the earlier, and more ignorant
stages of men’s knowledge of the relations of things.
But these facts have not as yet been met by any of
the arguers for the supernatural origin, and there
fore authoritative truth of theological doctrines. We
must conclude, therefore, that if, similar though the
doctrines of Christianism are to the myths of Osi
rianism, and of Naturianism generally, a special and
independent origin cannot be proved for them; they
were but derived from, or but transformations of
these myths. And if so, then, belief in them has, at
bottom, no diviner sanction than the labour-driven
ignorance, and priest-ridden servility which—result
ing from the economical conditions under which
�18
Christ and Osiris.
mental spontaneities originally worked—led to what
were but the mere subjective fictions of the myth
creating imagination being taken for objective realities.
Our hypothesis, as it first presented itself, was simply,
that the similarity of the doctrines of Osirianism to
those of Christianism was such as to be naturally
explained only by showing that the earlier import
antly influenced the development of the later Creed.
We now, however, see that, if it is to such an origin
that the doctrines of Christianism are to be traced, we
cannot stop here. If the Christian doctrines of the
Trinity, Incarnation, and Other-world, are in any
way to be derived from the myths of Osirianism, or
generally, of Naturianism; they had in these myths
but their proximate origin. Their ultimate origin
must, therefore, have been identical with the origin
of these myths ; and, like that, to be found but in
those base conditions, in the foregoing chapter set
forth, of primitive spiritist conceptions.
9. Unquestionably, the verification of an hypo
thesis which, to such an origin as this, would trace the
myths of Christianity, is of the very gravest import.
For it is almost incredibly tragical, that the sorrow
of a Milton, for instance, in meditating on the death
of Christ, had—so far as that sorrow was occasioned
by the thought of a divine person, an incarnate Grod,
who had come voluntarily on earth for the good of
mankind—no more ground of actual objective fact
than had the lamentations of the Syrian damsels, whom
the great Christian poet, all unconscious of being
himself the victim of a similar bitter-sweet delusion,
scornfully represents as, ‘ in amorous ditties, ’ bewail
ing such a fiction of their own imaginations as a
Thammuz or Adonis. And yet, if we consider the
hypothesis here suggested, on the Temple-roof at
Karnak, in relation to our Ultimate Law of History,
we shall see that such an origin as we have here been
led to suppose for the doctrines of Christianism—we
�Christ and Osiris.
shall see that a transformation of the myths of Naturianism in such doctrines as those of Christianism—is
but a deduction from our Ultimate Law, and a deduc
tion, the verification of which will be one of the most
important verifications of that Law. For, of that
Law the great central affirmation is, that the passage
from the earlier to the later mode of conceiving
Causation is through a transitional age marked by
the differentiation of Subjective and Objective; a
differentiation implying a great development of in
dividuality, of subjectivity, of morality; but not a
differentiation implying anything more than greater
abstractness merely in the primitive spiritist concep
tion of Causation. But if so, then it will evidently
follow that the spiritist beliefs which have dominated
the First Age of Humanity, will not be destroyed, but
only undergo a moral transformation. And what is
it that we find in the doctrines of Christianism but
jiist this—all the old myths of Osirianism revived in
such an identical fashion intellectually, that,—put but
Christ for Osiris,—and the general description of the
one creed is an accurate description of the other ?
Only in the moral spirit of Christianism is there a
change. But this is just what, from our Ultimate Law
of History, we should expect to find ; and the fact,
therefore, which can be for it but a most important
verification. This changed moral spirit, however, in
no way affects the objective validity of the myths in
which it is expressed. These continue to be but a
language ; a language in which other sentiments were
expressed before Christianity ; and a language which,
after Christianity, will still survive for the ex
pression of ideal emotion. And shocking though to
some may be the thought of the utter unreality of the
supernatural beings affirmed by Christianism, as by
Osirianism; such is the spectacle here, at Karnak,
presented, of the sublime tragedy of Human Exist
ence; that, if it is in any degree duly felt, it will be
�20
Christ and Osiris.
impossible for one to shrink from clearly stating to
oneself the truth, however destructive it may be.
As other Ideals have perished, so,—it would be pre
sumptuous to deny,—may ours. Very far are we from
being the first who have experienced the agony of
discovered delusion.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christ and Osiris
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Stuart-Glennie, John S.
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 20 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Reprinted by permission from "In the Morningland". Includes bibliographical references. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by C.W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, London. Osiris is the ancient Egyptian god whose annual death and resurrection personified the self-renewing vitality and fertility of nature.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT185
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (Christ and Osiris), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Egypt
Jesus Christ
Conway Tracts
Egypt-Religion
Jesus Christ
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bde3004f4c8c58fe17e13272474df252.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=KGXyrWFZpur-x-iH%7EslqlVDoJ2pbpThqhbzSyi%7EOGaxnquxsbShGvZ3SWWmW3na65nFvvlTJpyAI%7E6qGM-OX-JsPSDP5j2AXeBkmrM-7q4dc5Wpn4fx-A61wjAD4AcOPURupBWccZSaH2rGBlpxXcRN8n6e7B6B9KvhnGBr%7ENc9L9b6yUNgk%7E1SyCkBLRUmC8O8SWtYQh7YzQlnTu5xUlthYJQRm5k%7EzowJN4RF363mBk5qlqNLz4MjAHoEOmmFCCz-OSGIOO88Eb9o1sqLIeCfhnJFdg5JRLqDJkSSQqQXXaxEA1X8n1cBXGsMv6LPBeVIi2TxQAcENZ9hqNHSDig__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
fc8960e812414c43c21aa7a3b758865a
PDF Text
Text
PORTRAITURE AND MISSION
OF JESUS.
BY
THOMAS LUMISDEN STRANGE.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
NO. 11, THE TERRACE, FARQUHAR ROAD,
,
UPPER NORWOOD, LONDON, S.E.
1 8 7 6.
Price Sixpence.
��THE PORTRAITURE AND MISSION
OF JESUS.
IIAVE been, drawn to this subject by the work of
Prebendary Row, entitled “ The Supernatural in
the New Testament.” This defence of Christianity has
been undertaken by Mr Row at the desire of the Chris
tian Evidence Society, of which he is an active member,
as a reply to “ Supernatural Religion,” the extensive
currency of which able work has aroused action in
Christian circles.
Mr Row strengthens himself with his previous effort,
“ The Jesus of the Evangelists,” and in endeavouring
to meet him I must refer inquiring readers for a fuller
exhibition of the subjects I now handle to my volume,
“The Sources and Development of Christianity”
(Trubner & Co.).
Mr Row, in his earlier work, acknowledges the in
sufficiency of the endeavours hitherto made to clear
Christianity of the difficulties raised against the creed
by objectors of the present day, but, unfortunately, in
his attempt to supply a remedy, he shows himself un
acquainted with the sentiments of the more advanced
opponents of his cherished beliefs, who remain thus,
so far as he is concerned, still unanswered.
Mr Row considers the idea of the Christ, as embodied
in the Christian scriptures, to be a representation so
pure, so exalted, so consistent, so unprecedented, and
so realistic, that man was incapable of figuring such a
being out of his imagination, and that, consequently,
in this description, we have before us a true personage,
drawn from the life, and that life superhuman and
I
�6
The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
divine. But he sees the need at the same time to
point to the offered proofs of the alleged reality, and
his great source of testimony is that Jesus rose from
the dead. Here human supports are requisite, and
that upon which he substantially builds is the evidence
derived from the epistles attributed to Paul, who, it is
assumed, at a very early period, preached the resurrec
tion to audiences already cognizant of the’fact.
The conclusion I have come to is that there is not a
reliable trace of the existence of Christianity, from any
quarter, Jewish, Pagan, or Christian, for a hundred
and fifty years from the time alleged for the death of
the asserted founder. The sphere of Christianity I judge
must have been Alexandria, and not Jerusalem, which
had ceased to be, whence we have the Grecian, Egyp
tian, and Eastern elements, mingled with what was
derivable from Judaism, so characterizing Christianity,
and of which Alexandria was the focus. The tale of
Christianity thus with me is not dependent upon
enacted facts. I can allow that there was a person
such as the alleged founder of Christianity. His being
a carpenter, occupying the field of barbaric Galilee, and
suffering death as a culprit, are not features which the
constructor of an imaginary tale would go out of his way
to introduce wherewith to associate his hero, and there
fore, probably, we have here real facts presented to us;
but all beyond these circumstances, in illustration of the
being, preaching, and actions of the founder, I take to
be purely pictorial.
Mr Row, in dealing with the author of “ Supernatural
Religion,” insists on the possibility of what are termed
miracles. He assumes his adversary to be a Theist, one
who acknowledges the existence of a divine Creator,
handling created objects, and moulding them according
to his will. Introducing new force, such a Being may
convert water into wine without the intervention of the
grape; he may satisfy multitudes with supplies suffi
cient for but two or three persons, the debris of the
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
7
feasts amounting to more than the quantity of food
originally begun upon; he may enable a heavy body to
move upon water without sinking into and displacing
it; he may cure all diseases with a word, eject by a
command demons invading mankind, and raise the
dead. These are exercises of power liberally appealed
to by the heathen, in common with Jews and Chris
tians, from the remotest to the latest times. But it has
to be considered whether the Creator ever thus indulges
in exhibitions in reversal of his fixed rules of procedure;
and whether, when so many tales of the kind are sum
marily dismissed as unfounded, these particular instances
appearing in the Christian record may not be equally
untrue. What we should not credit now, whoever
asserted the facts, why should we receive because men
of old have made the assertion of the occurrences ? The
very essence of such testimony is the conviction arising
from ocular demonstration. Would the Creator need
to resort to such a source of evidence as this which can
only be passed on, in a diluted form, in the way of hear
say, and may be left to expire, as at this day, without
other support than unestablished tradition ? The ar
gument for the possibility of a miracle is of little account
when weighed against its improbability. Things of
divine origin stamp themselves as such by their inherent
properties. If the Creator has a testimony to offer of
his hand in the production of an object, it is never of a
dubious character. Between what he has done, and
what man may have done, there is no room to raise a
question. A blade of grass or a leaf reveals itself as
truly of his origination as the most stupendous orbs
circling in space. But when we come to miracles, there
is always the doubt to solve, were these manifestations
real ? Might they not have been due to trickery 1
Have they been rightly reported ? May not the whole
representations be figments, resorted to for an end 1
Mr Row does not, as far as I have observed, clear his
matter of these defects.
•
�8
The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
Mr Row apparently is not himself sure of the ground
on which he would have us place our feet as being per
fectly stable. Some of the representations he seeks to
reduce within limits that may be reasonably accepted.
The being of Satan, as currently apprehended, staggers
him. Wicked men are capable of exerting evil in
fluences, and Satan’s power is merely a higher sample
of such influence. If so, the agency of good may be
placed on the same sort of sliding scale, and the Deity
be figured as only a more exalted example of a benefi
cent man. The scripture distinctions are, however, as
absolute between Satanic and human capacity and
power, as between what is divine and what is human.
Again the temptation of Jesus is more than Mr Row
can receive in the naked form of the narrative. He
does not accept the idea of a personal Satan holding
intercourse with Jesus, transferring him bodily to a
pinnacle of the temple, or to the top of an exceedinghigh mountain, whence he was able to see “ all the
kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them.” Mr
Row is satisfied that there could be no such mountain,
or such exhibition, especially upon a spherical globe,
and would dispose of the whole representation as para
bolic. The sacred writer really did not mean what he
has apparently said. Drawing upon the infinite re
sources of the Creator, Mr Row observes of the multipli
cation of the few loaves and fishes upon which thous
ands were fed, that the materials were already existing
in the ground, the water, and the air, and had only to
be put together in the required forms by the additional
exercise of creative force he demands ; but he seems to
have overlooked that somehow, to produce bread, the
corn required to be ground and baked. The demons
transferred to the swine is an action he does not like to
contemplate as a reality. “The ‘going out from the
man ’ and 1 entering into the swine,’ may only denote the
cessation of the influence of the demons over the man,
and its exertion on the swine, without determining the
�The Portraiture and Mission of festis.
9
mode in which, that influence was exerted.” If we may
thus deal with the recounted miracles when they seem
to us too hard for belief pursuant to the terms in which
they have been narrated, these representations may one
and all be readily disposed of without offending reason
or warring against experience. The wine converted
water at the feast of Cana would be merely joy diffused
into the human heart; the diseases overcome would be
moral defects remedied; the restoring the blind, the
deaf, the dumb, and the lame, would be the imparting
moral and spiritual faculties where these were wanting
or dull and inactive; and the raising the dead would
be the introduction of spiritual life into a soul dead in
trespasses and sins. If the chosen advocate of a Society
constituted for the defence of Christianity may thus
lead the way in the path of rationalistic interpretation,
there will soon be nothing left of Christianity either to
object to or to defend.
Mr Row lowers the scripture representations in cer
tain other respects to have them reasonably received.
When Philip is said to have desired to see the Father,
and Jesus to have sought to satisfy him by pointing to
himself, this is held to imply no more than that in
Jesus was an exhibition of the Father’s character, his
person not being in question. Elsewhere we are told
that Jesus was “ the image of the invisible God,” “ the
express image of his person,” than which no stronger
phrases could be employed to denote a personal exhibi
tion. The choice being between rationalism and Chris
tianity, we cannot elect to have both.
Again, the allegation that miracles should be “signs”
which should “ follow them that believe,” affords a
test applicable to faith in miracles to the present day.
Mr Row, conscious that there is no such power among
believers, chooses to assert that it was a special tempo
rary endowment, “ designed for the building up of the
church into a distinct community, and when that
purpose was accomplished they (the miracles) were to
B
�io The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
cease.” The limitation in question is not in the text,
and is of Mr Row’s creation. And we may ask, when
has there ever been a “ distinct community” exhibiting
Christians in happy union in the faith ? The “ signs ”
effected nothing of the sort in the so-called apostolic
days, heresies and schisms having prevailed among the
body from the earliest age, and this condition has
accompanied Christianity through every period of its
existence to the present day. May we not then
reasonably doubt whether such “ signs ” were ever pro
vided for the effectuating that which never was accom
plished ?
Mr Row’s theory is, that miracles were provided in
order to vouch for a mission, and not for the purpose
of supporting lines of doctrine. “ Can miracles,” he
asks, “ prove moral truths 1 I answer emphatically in
the negative.” “ Moral truths cannot be proved by
the evidence of miracles, but must rest on their own
inherent evidence.” The existence of the Deity has,
he sees, been made known to man irrespective of any
written revelation. All the real elements of religion
are thus provided for the spiritual governance of the
human race without any appeal to miraculous agency,
which has been resorted to, it would seem, merely to
support certain wondrous tales. Judged of in this light,
of what value, it may be asked, is the scheme of Chris
tianity to the moral man, who stands so completely free
of and above its specialities ?
Restricted as is the use of miracles, as thus under
stood by Mr Row, we find them unessential even with
in this described, confined, sphere. Where was the
miraculous attestation to the mission of John the
Baptist ? He is described as the forerunner of the
Messiah, appointed to “ go before the face of the Lord
to prepare his ways,” “ to give light to them that sit in
darkness and in the shadow of death, to guide their
feet into the way of peace,” “ to make ready a people
prepared for the Lord.” So important were his func-
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
11
tions considered to be, that he stands proclaimed as a
prophet, “and more than a prophet,” “greater” in
effect than any who had yet been “ born of women,”
surpassing thus Elijah, Samuel, and even Moses him
self ; and yet his mission, so necessary to the introduc
tion of that of Jesus, is ushered in without a miracle.
On the other hand, the most stupendous miracle that
ever is alleged to have been exhibited, namely, the
resuscitation of a corpse by accidental contact with the
bones of Elisha, was a manifestation unassociated with
any mission. Thus we have the chiefest of all human
missions presented without the voucher of a miracle,
and the chiefest of all miracles enacted without alliance
to a mission, and Mr Row must find some other pur
pose for the miraculous than that assigned by him to
such action.
But supposing it the case that miracles were to attest
missions, does not the repetition of them involve the
weakness of the testimony they are to supply ? One
miracle apparently proves nothing unless followed up
by another, and another, and we have to ask whether
one or more insufficiencies will supply us with a suffi
ciency. And the whole collection of these wonders,
it would seem, required the corroboration of the
supreme miracle of the resurrection; and this again
required and received confirmation from the wonder
workings of the first Christians. Thus Mr Row weaves
his web to the entanglement of his own feet.
An essential to a miracle, according to Mr Row, is
that it should have been preannounced. Judged of by
this test, how will the miracle of the resurrection stand
its ground ? It is true there are passages attributing
to Jesus, when in life, that he said he was to rise again
on the third day from the dead; but there are circum
stances, taking them as stated, which completely defeat
the representation that he ever made such a declara
tion. The women who are said to have visited his
tomb on this third day, went there for the purpose of
�12 The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
embalming the body. They could not have expected
that the body was just then to pass into restored life.
Joseph of Arimathea and Nicodemus are declared to
have actually embalmed it. According to the fourth
Gospel, Mary Magdalene first visited the tomb, and
finding the body gone, went in bewilderment to Peter
and John saying, “ They have taken away the Lord out
of the sepulchre, and we know not where they have
laid him.” The apostles are said to have ran and
.satisfied themselves of the fact, but as yet, it is re
marked, “ they knew not the scripture, that he must
rise again from the dead.” Any announcement of the
coming resurrection by Jesus himself is not referred to,
and as to the scripture testimony, it must be observed,
it is nowhere fairly discoverable. According to the
third Gospel, the women were told distinctly by two
angels, who were standing at the tomb, that the resurrec
tion had been effected; and when they went and made
their report to the apostles, so little was the event
looked for, that their words were accounted as “idle tales,
and they believed them not.” The two disciples, said
to have been met with at Emmaus, showed that their hopes
in Jesus had been extinguished by his death. Thomas
is described as stoutly refusing to credit any evidence to
his re-appearance in life but that of his own senses. And,
according to Matthew, when the eleven had the risen
Jesus before them, some of them even then “ doubted.”
The announcement that he should rise from the dead,
had it been made by Jesus, was a circumstance of too
simple a sort to be misapprehended, especially from the
lips of one said to have repeatedly shown his power
over death by restoring others to life ; had he, conse
quently, made this announcement, the disciples, on
the day specified, would have been expecting his reap
pearance, and certainly would not have refused evi
dence to the event when it was certified to them that it
had occurred. Mr Row’s desideratum of preannounce
ment of the coming marvel, as necessary to the accept-
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
i3
ance of a miracle as such, is assuredly wanting in
respect of this chief instance on which he depends as a
fundamental testimony for Christianity.
Mr Row’s most important authority for the fact of
the resurrection is Paul, and of the occasions mentioned
by him when the risen Jesus manifested himself, he
selects, as entitled to most consideration, that when he
is said to have shown himself to “ above five hundred
brethren at once.” Mr Row supposes that this may
have happened when there was the apparition in
Galilee, recorded in Matthew, but here the text is
against his conclusion. It is said in Matthew, that
after his resurrection Jesus told the two Marys to
direct his “ brethren ” to “ go into Galilee,” where they
should see him. “ Then,” it is added, “ the eleven dis
ciples went into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus
had appointed them,” showing that the message was to
these only, and to them the exhibition. And this is
in accordance with the statement in the Acts, that he
manifested himself “ not to all the people, but unto
witnesses chosen before of God, even to us, who did
eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead.”
This excludes the idea that Jesus ever appeared after
death to an indiscriminate multitude exceeding five
hundred in number; nor can we see that he had so
many followers at this time, as the believers were num
bered, it is said, after Pentecost, and then found to be
but “ about an hundred and twenty.”
The evidence thus attributed to Paul, which was at
best only hearsay, is found to be wanting in every
characteristic of true evidence, as judged of by other
associated scripture. Still Mr Row is entitled to say
that Paul asserted the fact of the resurrection, and he
makes much of this assertion as coming from him within
twenty or thirty years of the alleged occurrence.
Here Mr Row builds upon the circumstance that
four of the Pauline epistles—namely, that to the
Romans, the 1st and 2d to the Corinthians, and that
�14 The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
to the Galatians—are currently accepted by even ad
verse critics as genuine. I am aware that this is so,
but on the other hand know not on what grounds this
assurance is founded. Certainly there are no collateral
supports for Christianity, of a recognizable character,
from any quarter, during the so-called apostolic age, or,
it may be added, for a century later; and the mere
occurrence in these epistles of features to exhibit the
writer as a living personage, moving in the midst of
events and persons alluded to by him, may show him
to be a clever draftsman, but do not prove the realities
of any part of his descriptions, or that he was that Paul
of the apostolic period he professes to be. To me there
is abundant room for concluding that he was not that
Paul, and that these and the other epistles bearing the
name of Paul are from Gentile hands at indeterminate
periods.
It is apparent that the Paul of the Acts stood in a
very different position from the Paul of the epistles.
The Paul of the Acts is described as visiting Jerusalem
at an early stage in his Christian career, as associating
himself with the constituted apostles, as acting in
subordination to the churches of Jerusalem and Antioch, and as in every respect of the type of the first
Christians, who were merely a Jewish sect. He pro
claimed himself, it is said, a Pharisee, and had never
diverged from the law of Moses or the temple ordi
nances. But the Paul of the Galatians, we are told,
kept himself aloof from Jerusalem and the apostles,
held a particular line of doctrine of his own which he
traced to a revelation made specially to himself, asserted
for himself independent authority coming to him, like
his doctrine, by commission from above, thought lightly
of the apostles, and swept away every reliance on
Judaism as being a system powerless for good, and
absolutely superseded by the new dispensation. The
other associated epistles inculcate the same view of
Judaism. Here we have, assuredly, between the Acts
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
15
and these epistles, two or more several Pauls; and the
scene being laid in the extinguished Jerusalem, it be
comes evident, as in the instance of the gospel descrip
tions of Christ personally, that we have in the Paul of
the alleged apostolical age merely pictorial representa
tions of such a preacher.
The epistle to the Romans presents special difficulties
to its acceptance as a genuine address to the Church of
Rome in the era ascribed to it. The faith of this
church, at this early period, is said to be “ spoken of
throughout the whole world,” and yet when Paul,
according to the Acts, at a later time visited Rome, so
little had this alleged church influenced the neighbour
hood, that the inquiring Jews of Rome are shown to
be totally ignorant of what constituted Christianity,
and to have looked to Paul to enlighten them; and as
Josephus made Rome his place of abode from the year 7 0
to the end of the century, there inditing his history of
all that concerned the Jews, it is apparent that, had
there been a sect flourishing in the city who were pro
claiming the risen Jesus as the Messiah in his time,
the circumstance was one this careful and discerning
writer could not have failed to notice and to comment
on. Furthermore, the last two chapters of this epistle
contain matters inconsistent with other portions of
Paul’s accepted history, and attribute to him an ac
quaintance with residents of Rome which he could not
have had before visiting the place ; to save the epistle
from which defects it is usual to sever these chapters
from it as spurious additions. When, however, the in
tegrity of the whole epistle may be called in question,
the occurrence of these particular chapters, we may
suppose, very possibly, to be indiscretions on the part
of the hand that fabricated the earlier portion.
The scripture shows that there was a time when the
disciples Considered themselves precluded from offering
the gospel to the Gentiles, and the restriction is ac
counted for by the founder when in life having enjoined
�16 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
it on them to confine their ministry to the lost sheep
of the house of Israel. The church was then in Jewisli
form, and accordingly in the Acts we find the first
teachers, and prominently the alleged Paul, described
as frequenting the temple and practising and upholding
Judaism. At some undiscernible period the door was
opened to the Gentiles, and the character of the dis
pensation became materially altered. Attempts are
made to place the change upon a warrantable footing,
but the statements here are so inconsistent, that all the
conclusion we can come to is that we have not true
history before us. The proclamation of the gospel to
the Gentiles could not have been owing, as alleged, to
a command issued by Jesus at his resurrection, else it
would not have been necessary to provide Peter with a
vision from heaven to encourage him to exercise this
liberty ; nor could there have been this vision to Peter,
or Paul and Barnabas would not have had to resort to
a questionable interpretation of the Jewish scripture to
justify their free ministry among the Gentiles ; and, it
may be added, were there this scriptural support, either
Jesus could not have been conscious of it, or he could
not have given the edict of exclusion against this scrip
ture. We arrive, therefore, at this result, that at some
unrevealed time, and under some circumstances not
properly disclosed, the Judaic form of Christianity
became altered and a dispensation for the Gentiles was
introduced, and in this unknown period, and certainly
not within twenty or thirty years of the alleged resur
rection, as assumed by Mr Row, the Pauline epistles
made their appearance, and probably from Gentile
hands.
Mr Row comforts himself with the idea that no one
looks upon the Christian narrative as a deliberate in
vention. It is time assuredly to remove from the
advocates of Christianity such a refuge. What is the
meaning of that host of criticism in which, in modern
times, Dr Strauss has led the way, founded upon the
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
17
conflict of statement in the gospel narratives, one repre
sentation destroying or excluding another, if it be not
that these critics disallow the historical value of the
narratives ? They may admit some sort of foundation
for the proferred history, but in its essential parts,
figuring the hero in a desired form, they see that reali
ties have not been followed. Marks, in fact, indicating
what must be looked upon as deliberate fabrication on
the part of the gospel writers are not wanting, and I
will point out a few.
It is transparent that these writers have had the
desire to exhibit Jesus as fulfilling ancient prophecies,
and there must always have been a tendency on their
parts to find events to correspond with the predictions.
Some of the circumstances so brought together are of a
character to give evidence of designed adaptations, as
that of Jesus being taken to and brought from Egypt
merely to carry out the saying, “ Out of Egypt have I
called my son;” the “voice of him that crieth in the
wilderness,” said to have been realized literally in the
instance of John the Baptist; the being borne up by
angels lest his foot should he dashed against a stone, as
being met by Jesus when Satan tempted him to throw
himself down from a pinnacle of the temple; the people
of Zabulon and Napthalim being visited by a great
light, provided by Jesus in his ministrations in those
among other localities; the attempt to prove John to
be the precursor before “ the great and dreadful day of
the Lord” spoken of by Malachi, of which no more
could be said than, “ If ye will receive it, this is Elias,
which was for to come;” the purging the temple be
cause Jeremiah had complained of God’s house being
converted into a den of thieves; the casting lots for
the garments of Jesus to accomplish a saying of the
Psalmist; and Jesus calling out in his last moments
“I thirst” in order to fulfil another passage in the
Psalms. A history composed with materials thus
selected carries with it on its face the appearance of
�18 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
having been so arranged for a purpose, and if there are
anywhere positive indications of statements introduced
of a nature warring with fact, the whole representation
becomes tainted as based upon fiction.
The gospels of Matthew and Luke contain genealogies
deriving Joseph in a direct line from David. Now, as
it is freely admitted in Jewish circles that the people
had no knowledge of their tribal distinctions from the
time of the Babylonish captivity, it is clear that the
family of Joseph, a carpenter of Galilee, could have
had no means of ascertaining their lineage as traceable
through David to the tribal patriarch Judah. It was
held desirable, to meet the requirements of assumed
prophecy, in presenting Jesus as the Messiah, to show
him lineally descended from David, and therefore it is
that we have these genealogies. They were framed by
the two writers independently of each other, and they
effectually disagree, as might be expected when put to
gether with imaginary data.
These same writers also give us a divine nativity for
Jesus, a circumstance to entirely defeat the aforesaid
genealogies; for if Jesus had no human father, he be
comes cleared of association with Joseph and David,
who had no part in his paternity. The event of this
divine procreation is never made use of again to the last
page of the sacred record, and the probability is that it
was a late introduction. The tale could not have been
current in the times depicted in the Acts, else it would
have been an offence charged against Paul, that he had
preached the new divinity, whereas he stood acquitted
of having transgressed in any way against accepted
Judaism as expressed by the law of Moses and em
bodied in the ordinances of the temple; nor would it
have been said at this time, as it has been said, that
Jesus obtained his divine sonship only at the day of
his resurrection, according to the saying applied to him
from the second Psalm.
With the account of the divine nativity in Matthew
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
19
is linked Herod’s slaughter of the infants at Bethlehem,
a matter the want of historical support for which has
been commonly noticed. The conspiracy of Pheroras,
as recounted by Josephus, would seem to have sug
gested this portion of the tale. Certain Pharisees,
supposed to be gifted with the power of seeing into the
future, predicted that Herod’s line should be over
thrown in favour of that of Pheroras. On this Herod
put these prophets, and all of his own family who
favoured the pretensions of Pheroras, to death.
Pheroras he drove away to his own tetrarchy, and
he went swearing with many oaths that he would
not return till Herod was dead. Thus we have the
prophecy of the subversion of the line of Herod, the
consequent slaughter, the withdrawal of the rival, and
his remaining in retreat till the death of Herod, all
which circumstances the gospel writer has apparently
made use of, and converted them in altered form to
embellish his history of Jesus. As Josephus’ history
was not indited till the year 93, it follows that this
portion of the narrative respecting Jesus was not even
imagined until a later time.
Jesus is described as having been of Nazareth, and
the distinction is kept up even by a voice from heaven
alleged to have addressed Paul in effecting his conver
sion. Josephus mentions no such place, and we first
hear of it, outside the pages of the scripture, from
Eusebius, in the fourth century, when it is called
Nazara, and said to be a village not of Galilee but of
Judea. Matthew, ever striving to adapt fact to pro
phecy, asserts that it had been predicted that Jesus
should be “called a Nazarene,” but by which of the
prophets he did not venture to point out. Possibly
he was thinking of the term Nazarite, and there is the
appearance that the name Nazareth has been coined
under a play upon the Hebrew word nazar, consecra
tion.
The second Psalm has a saying which has been
�20 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
frequently appealed to in the Christian scriptures as
applicable to Jesus. The phrase is, “ Thou art my son;
this day have I begotten thee.” The question is of
what day did the Psalmist speak ? He shows in the
verse next preceding that the time involved was when
it could also be said of the personage adverted to, “yet
have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion,” which
was to be effected when the confederacy of the kings and
rulers of the earth against him had been overthrown.
This is sufficiently definite, and shows the eventful
birth to be still in the womb of futurity. The Chris
tian writers, anxious for the support of so marked a
declaration, blind themselves to its surroundings, and
Say that it took effect in the instance of Jesus. The
earliest statement, namely, that in the Acts, was, that
it was by the means of his resurrection that this sonship was conferred upon him. The epistle to the
Romans supports this representation, and twice in the
epistle to the Hebrews the passage in question in its
integrity is made applicable to Jesus. At some later
time, seemingly, various other and conflicting allegations
were introduced to support the title of Jesus to this pro
phesied sonship. An angel informs Mary that he was
to acquire the divine sonship at his birth, his procreator
being the Holy Ghost; a voice from heaven proclaims
his sonship thirty years later at his baptism, as if then
conferred on him, using the words of the Psalm, but
(suspiciously) in a modified manner; and there is the
same declaration, with the same modified use of the
language of the Psalm, brought in at the transfigura
tion. On this one important point, therefore, how and
when Jesus was made to be the son of God, we have a
variety of conflicting statements, the leading statement,
namely, that of the Psalm, which is the foundation of
all the others, showing that it is an event that has yet
to be accomplished. It is a mockery of our senses if
the specific “ this day ” when the son in question was
to be “ begotten,” is applicable to five different occasions.
�The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
21
One would think also if God could introduce among
us an individual thus begotten by himself, his divinity
would have been recognizable without the need of the
offices of any herald.
There are some minor matters in which the hand of
the constructor is also shown. To meet a prophecy,
Jesus has to enter Jerusalem as its king upon an ass.
The writer of Matthew, misapprehending the Hebrew
phrase, brings upon the scene two animals, and curi
ously enough places Jesus upon them both. Mark and
Luke, reading the Hebrew aright, have but one
animal. Matthew and Luke state that Jesus predicted
that before the cock crowed Peter should deny him
thrice, and accordingly it is said, after his denial of any
knowledge of Jesus three several times, 11 immediately
the cock crew.” Mark has it that the saying of Jesus
to Peter was, “before the cock crow twice, thou shalt
deny me thrice and accordingly he makes it out that
there was a crowing of the cock after the first denial,
and again after the third, shaping his events to suit
his sense of the prophetic utterance. At the crucifixion
of Jesus the soldiers are said to have cast lots for his
garments in fulfilment of a saying in the twenty-second
Psalm. Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree that the
whole of the garments were thus disposed of by lot.
John, misapprehending the force of the Hebrew, thinks
that it was meant that the “ vesture,” or upper “ coat,”
as he takes it to have been, had been referred to dis
tinctively, and was alone to be subjected to lot, and he
puts his facts accordingly, saying that the “ garments ”
were divided into four portions, for each soldier a por
tion, and that as the “ coat ” was without seam theycould not divide, it, but cast lots to decide which of
them should have it.
Mr Row furthermore supports himself with the
belief that the representation of Christ, as given in the
gospel accounts, is so drawn as to demonstrate that it
must have been taken from a real life, and that life of
�'ll Pbe Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
such a character as to have been of divine mould.
Assuredly the picture of a god-man was one difficult
to portray. We may say indeed that there is an im
possibility to conceive the incidents proper to prove the
being to be described as at once truly man and truly
God, the conditions of the two natures and spheres
being so diverse, and that of one of the two standing
essentially beyond our cognizance. That the gospel
writers in their portraiture have had nothing to draw
from but human models, and that they have failed to
present their subject with the attribute of perfection, or
to maintain the composition of the divine with the
human in consistency, was to have been expected; and
we may readily see, in the imperfections of their work,
that in a dark and ignorant age, building upon imagina,tion and not upon fact, they have ventured upon a task
which could not have been even attempted in an
enlightened one.
The object placed before us is a carpenter, the re
puted son of a carpenter, living in remote and barbaric
Galilee, suddenly presenting himself, at the mature age
of thirty, as in being an incarnate god, and in office the
long-expected Messiah of the Jews. His credentials
are his mighty works, or a system of thaumaturgical
displays, his own assertions, and the character of his
teaching, all to be judged of in an age incompetent to
discern or weigh the facts, and to be sustained through
all time by the hearsay reports of we know not who.
The humanity of the mother is certain, but we are
perplexed to decide whether on the father’s side he
sprang from a human or a divine parent. It is as when
the renowned conqueror Alexander was traceable either
to Philip or to Jupiter Amon; or as when Hercules
was derivable from the same supreme god or from
Amphitr.yo; or, nearer still in parallelism, as when
the imprisoned virgin Danae was visited and “ over
shadowed” by this divinity and brought forth the
heroic Perseus. Both parentages are asserted and sup-
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
23
ported, the divine by angelic messengers, visiting, how
ever, only the ostensible parents, the human by elabo
rate details of the father’s pedigree. What Jesus said
of himself is equally doubtful. His pleasure appears
to have been to style himself “ son of man; ” when
devils, cognizant of his divine constitution, were about
to disclose who he was, he authoritatively shut their
mouths; when at a late period in his ministry Peter
asserted his divine sonship and position as the Christ
or Messiah, he attributed his knowledge of him to a
direct revelation from heaven, showing that hitherto he
had never thus proclaimed himself; and at the same
time he interdicted his disciples from declaring him to
others. Currently he was considered to be a prophet,
and if, as held in the Acts and the Epistle to the
Romans, his condition as the son of God dated only
from his resurrection, his career in the flesh must have
been devoid of the divine ingredient. His place in the
godhead has therefore, it is apparent, been imagined for
him under the ordinary stimulus of the desire of his
followers to magnify their master, as in the instance of
the Hindu reformer Buddha, or of the Roman em
perors, or of any other example of apotheosis or
canonization.
The appeal to miracles is a very questionable resort.
Now as Jesus is repeatedly represented to have
exhorted those on whose behalf they were wrought to
keep the matter secret to themselves, and as when such
signs, upon being asked for, were refused to be accorded
by him, and the desire to have them was repressed as
sinful, it is to be gathered, in spite of the sayings to the
contrary, that the writers were aware that there was no
such public sense of the occurrence of these marvels as
must have attached to them had they really been
enacted, and we are left to the conclusion that there
were in fact no such demonstrations. Not only there
fore was the divine Messiahship, it may be seen, not
asserted in the lifetime of Jesus, the testimony of the
�24 The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
miracles to fall back upon as evidences of his super
human being and mission, was also, it may be under
stood, equally wanting. Such displays of alleged power
are after all a very weak and hacknied device, common
among the Hebrew prophets, asserted as current among
the followers of Jesus, and traceable in every mythology
that has prevailed, Hindu, Chaldean, Egyptian, Grecian,
•and Roman, with which the Christian writers were
familiar when they drew up their narratives, and from
which sources, it may be judged, they derived their
models.
Nor were the acts ascribed to Jesus of a character
uniformly to sustain the pretensions asserted for him of
his divinity. It certainly was not ennobling that he
should by a miracle have supplied a vast quantity of
wine to promote the revelry of those who had already
“ well drunk; ” that he should make clay with his
spittle to anoint the eyes of a blind man and restore
him to sight; that he should drive swine to self-destruc
tion by infesting them with demons; that he should
look for his tribute money in a fish’s mouth ; that he
should curse and blight a senseless fig-tree for not pro
ducing fruit out of due season; that he should castigate
with a whip, made up by him of small cords, merchants
and money changers assembled in the temple courts, in
promotion of the ordinary temple services. These are
defective pictures betraying the pencils of inferior
artists.
We have Jesus represented as stretching out his arms
longingly to Jerusalem, exclaiming, “How often would
I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen
gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would
not;” but as his divine sonship and Messiahship were
both profound secrets, in what capacity, it must be
asked, could he have offered himself to Jerusalem and
been refused 1 In fact there is no such action towards
the city on his part described, and the attitude in ques
tion is a mere sensational protraiture.
�The Portraiture and Mission of Jesus.
25
We have him described as speaking as never man
spake before, but such a thing as a novel elevated senti
ment is not recorded as falling from his lips. He retails
what was current among Essenes and devout Jews of
his day, and preaches natural religion as prevailing
among the godly in all times. His famous sermon on
the mount, for example, contains nothing but what is
fairly traceable to the teachers of his people who had
preceded him, as transmitted to us in the Talmudic
traditions. But in these unequal delineations he is
also represented to us as designedly withholding from
the people instruction in godliness. He veils his dis
courses in parables with the professed intention that
they should not be intelligible to his hearers, to their
benefit, “lest at any time they should see with their
eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand
with their heart, and should be converted, and he should
heal them,” (the parables, however, nevertheless, being
simple in structure, and transparent as to their import) ;
and he solemnly thanks God that “these things,”
necessary for their salvation, are “ hid ” from the wise
and prudent, and revealed only to those who are without
discernment as “ babes.”
He is made, contrary to all sense of modesty, to an
nounce himself as “ meek and lowly,” ever ready “ to
seek and to save the lost ones.” We find him far from
accessible to those who looked to him for instruction,
rebuffing them with short and enigmatical answers; he
reviles Scribes and Pharisees as hypocrites, whitened
sepulchres, liars, and children of the devil; he is rude
to his own mother ; he holds earthly ties of relationship
in small account when measured by his personal mission,
and represents that he has “ come to set a man at vari
ance against his father, and the daughter against her
mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-inlaw,” adding that under his dispensation “ a man’s foes
shall be they of his own household.” “ There is nothing
more remarkable,” acknowledges Mr Bow himself, in
�26 The Portraiture and Mission of fesus.
his earlier work, “ The Jesus of the Evangelists,”—“in
the Evangelical portraiture of the Christ than the
manner in which the humblest of men is depicted as
habitually preaching himself.’’ “In no other man
would such an assumption wear anything but the
appearance of arrogance.” And yet we are to accept
the feature as consistent with a perfect specimen of
humanity fortified and exalted with a divine essence
ever permeating through it.
The being so composed is in truth a mass of bewilder
ing inconsistencies. God is said to have “ so loved the
world ” that he gave up his son “ that the world through
him might be saved,” and yet the son solemnly inti
mates to the Father, “ I pray not for the world ; ” he
is “ the light of the world,” “ the true light which
lighteth every man that cometh into the world,” and
nevertheless consigns multitudes to perdition, of whom
he will say, “ I never knew you; ” he expresses in him
self the type of poverty, as one who had not a hole
wherein to lay his head, but can pass forty days and
forty nights without food, create sustenance for thou
sands out of nothing, fabricate wine out of water, and
supply himself with cash from a fish’s mouth; he is
at once the bridegroom, the centre of joy, and spreading
joy around him, and the man of sorrows and acquainted
with grief; he is the source of life, and yet cannot pro
tect his own life from his enemies ; he is God, “ equal
with God,” and nevertheless, in an agony of distress,
“ with strong crying and tears,’’ entreats God for
deliverance, and his prayer is unheeded ; again he is
God, and yet feels himself abandoned by God ; he came
to lay down his life as a sacrifice for others, and when
he undergoes his destined fate, not recognizing his own
work, he upbraids God with forsaking him, and wonders
“ why” he has done so.
It is a relief to know that this is no true life, but a
mere portraiture of an ideal personage drawn by ignorant
men, for ignorant classes, in days of darkness. Josephus
�The Portraiture and Mission of°Jesus.
27
knew nothing of these wonderments, and he wrote up to
the year 93, being familiar with all the chief scenes of
the alleged Christianity. Nicolaus of Damascus, who
preceded him and lived to the time of Herod’s successor
Archelaus, and Justus of Tiberias, who was the con
temporary and rival of Josephus in Galilee, both Jewish
historians, equally knew nothing of the movement.
Philo-Judseus, who occupied the whole period ascribed
to Jesus, and engaged himself deeply in figuring out the
Logos, had heard nothing of the being who was realizing
at Jerusalem the image his fancy was creating ; and for
about a hundred and fifty years from the time given as
that of the death of Jesus, there is not a single reliable
name or record connected with Christianity which can
be safely associated with the period. After this lapse
of time, when Jerusalem had been destroyed and the
Jews exiled by Hadrian, the Christian representations
were conceived and gradually put together. The Jewish
scriptures and the traditionary teaching of their doctors,
the Essenes and Therapeuts, the Greek philosophies, the
neo-platonism of Alexandria, and the Buddhism of the
East, gave ample supplies for the composition of the
doctrinal portion of the new faith; the divinely pro
created personages of the Grecian and Roman pantheons,
the tales of the Egyptian Osiris, and of the Indian
Rama, Krishna, and Buddha, furnished the materials
for the image of the new saviour of mankind; and
every surrounding mythology poured forth samples of
the “ mighty works ” that were to be attributed to him
to attract and enslave his followers ; and thus, first
from Judaism, and finally from the bosom of heathen
dom, we have our matured expression of Christianity.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The portraiture and mission of Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Strange, Thomas Lumisden
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 27 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. The pamphlet, in part, challenges the work of Prebendary Row entitled 'The Supernatural in the New Testament'.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1876
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
CT179
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The portraiture and mission of Jesus), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
Superstition
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b51ed27a556e8f51386ba731f205773c.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cpeY3jBJknYAK7MCzO5rjQkkrJoUnsWphAeu1a5SSRbFfPxZS2tTGvyr4At%7E8Om2eHT7zQfgeevfVZ5B7N%7Eat2knGnm7d8mxqUxaAJ7cv21vfq9EEoFzDG5E-HGfuRHGIsXC4l0DjQE2QlunM6Sw-X34nCbsCvdc-eeCm56Zoytva%7E7hVLBRWC3vdmie3Kf9%7EuYfKjTrPe%7EEmIhx0FHT03D4UPpeeY4gGnU7DMhtxg2kUbbdOjyOpgAubY6wLtJ1syYAjDQwQgT0kI2SqutfDdZp8tK%7E7AsxkIfqJWmHDVaaUGU4ZyrAdfGeO9%7EQOIxO2S6FI85vJcMMEEbwteqFcg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
775f2da9c4f004455b0d8930567c8cc3
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
“ TRUTH SEEKER ” PAMPHLETS, No. 2.]
2nd EDITION.
CHRIST AND ALLY SLOPER
BY THE LATE SAM STANDRING.
WITH PREFATORYj NOTE BY GEORGE STANDRING.
IPRICE ONE PENNY.
�PREFATORY NOTE.
The publishers have asked me to contribute a note to this,
the second, edition of my late brother’s little pamphlet.
In “ Christ and Ally Sloper,” Sam added a very suggestive and
interesting “line” to Freethought propaganda. The pamphlet—
obviously summarized from the materials of a lecture—was in its
first edition hastily put together, and I have in this reprint
corrected some blemishes in style that he had allowed to pass.
But I have not in any way interfered with his treatment of the
subject; the alterations made are simply verbal.
In dealing with Ally Sloper in this way, Sam paid a probable
unconscious tribute to the profound influence of early mental im
pressions. When the first volume of Sloper sketches appeared—
about thirty years ago—Sam, my sister Kate, and I were about the
age when the consumption of sweet-stuff and the daily routine of
home-life become merged in the wider interests of the outside world.
The Sloper “literature”—his “Book of Beauty,”-“Sloper at the
Paris Exhibition,” etc.—were marked, learned, and inwardly digested
by us with that absorbing delight which we lose in riper years. I
have now upon my shelf Sloper’s “ Book of Beauty,”—a relic of
that far-off time; well-thumbed, toffee-marked, loose and partly in
tatters; but it is to me full of tenderest memories of bygone
days. Why did Sam, for so many years, bear in mind with an
affectionate interest the old rascal Sloper and his associates 1 Why
do I now on occasion turn over the tattered pages of the book, and
find each well-remembered stupid picture encircled in a positive
halo of sweet memories 1 To us both, Sloper recalled the days of
our childhood, the love and presence of our long-lost mother, the
simple joys of our early home-life, gone beyond recall. In this
respect, Jesus Christ and Ally Sloper stand to me in much the
same relation. I can well remember as a child reading the story
of Christ in the gospels ; and well also can I remember the feeling
of utter desolation that came over me as I read of his death upon
the cross. The resurrection I never believed in; Jesus, alive, I
loved with a childish love; but when he was crucified I felt that
he was dead once and for all, and the story of his resurrection
failed to comfort or convince me.
While priests are permitted to imbue the minds of children with
superstition the work of emancipation must ever continue to be
necessary. Let us strive to stop the evil at its source by protecting
the young from its contaminating influence !
George Standring.
�3^14-4*J6^3
CHRIST AND ALLY SLOPER.
By SAM
STANDRING.
Every Freethought lecturer finds it necessary now and again to
answer the crucial question, Did Jesus Christ ever live 1 Of course
his Christian hearers will invariably object that the question is the
merest twaddle; that there is no more doubt about Christ having
lived than there is about the lecturer’s existence; that all history
proves that Jesus of Nazareth was a very real person indeed.
What I want to do in this pamphlet is to show that a purely
fictitious character may easily become one in whom the many
believe. I have no wish whatever to draw any analogy between
Jesus and Ally Sloper beyond that of the origin and development
of the respective myths. Granted that the characters are fictitious,
their characteristics are mere details of no present concern ; but in
this case the parallel is so clear that one is tempted to run the risk
of being called “ blasphemous ” in order to prove so desirable a
point.
.
Ally Sloper has originated within the memory of all middle-aged
readers. It is but some thirty years since he first saw the light of
day. Judy was his literary mother. One fine morning a page of
that comic journal was devoted to some of the eccentric doings of
the tall thin man whose crumpled white hat with its conspicuous
broad black band, swallow-tailed coat, and the protruding gin
bottle were to mark him as a pet of Society. No one called round
�4
on the editor with a pickaxe or pistol, and so it was deemed
possible to publish another sketch in safety. This proved no more
dangerous than the other. Frequent insertions of the quaint old
man’s preposterous doings caused him to become familiar to the
readers. They not only liked him, they began to look with
eagerness for the story of his adventures. Ally was ever welcome,
and he grew in favour week by week. As time wore on, it became
desirable to add to the original stock. Sloper had a companion,
by name Iky Mo, who mainly instigated the major part of our
hero’s peccadilloes, and reaped the lion’s share of the harvest.
Ally did the wickedness and got the kicks; when ha’pence came
in, Iky Mo held the bag for them. By this means Ally Sloper
soon found himself honoured as the best-kicked man in Europe.
After some seventeen years of prosperity in Judy, Ally Sloper
began to launch out on his own account. Marie Duval’s excellent
sketches settled his physiognomy; and he who once had been but
the actor of cruel jokes had now become the centre, the hero of
of every adventure. His Summer Number detached him from his
mother; and a Calendar, if I remember rightly, still further
weaned him from the Old Lady of Fleet Street. More than aught
else, the collections of his sayings and doings in the wonderfully
racy “Book of Beauty” gave Sloper an independence he had long
deserved.
Now commences the second portion of “The Eminent’s” work
and fame. Hitherto there had been no material change in him.
As Ross and Marie Duval had initiated him so he remained.
A
few apocryphal data of his boyhood’s days had been made mani
fest to the public; but we knew little of him as a family man.
Beyond a glimpse or two in his “ Guide to the Paris Exhibition,”
the public scarcely knew, even, that he had a better half. With
the advent of “ Ally Sloper’s Half Holiday ” all this was changed.
Sloper assumed a variety of different characters. At the Derby
Day or University Boat Race he was indispensable. At dinner
with the Queen, or inspecting a review of troops, or playing tricks
upon the crowds who sought refreshment at the sea-side, Ally
Sloper was equally at home. His gin-blossom nose was there,
though the hat, coat, and boots gave way to clothing in keeping
with the scene. His wife now became more and more apparent.
The sons of his bosom, and Tootsie, the sweet daughter of his
heart, grew up round him like the olive branches of Holy Scripture.
�Besides these, the Hon. Billy, the Dook Snook, Tottie Goodenough,
and the other ladies of the “Friv.,” Bill Higgins, and some others,
about twenty in all, formed the group of which Ally was necessarily
the centre. Week by week their doings are all faithfully recorded.
To thousands of persons they are undoubtedly real characters,
whose images are to be seen in toy-shop windows; who appear
from time to time on the public stage, and ride about at country
fairs. What fancy dress ball or ventriloquial exhibition would
be complete without the presence of “ The Friend of Man ” ? Nay,
the thing has gone even farther than that. In Shoe Lane, London,
one sees the large front window of the “Ally Sloper’s Half Holiday”
offices filled as a museum with old hats, combs, brushes, shoes, and
hundreds of other relics alleged to have belonged to Sloper and his
family and friends ; whilst in certain shops you see framed and
glazed diplomas granted by “ The Eminent ” to particular trades
men, and in the stage papers a portion of the actors and actresses
rejoice in the use of certain initials, F.O.S. to wit, which signify
that they are friends of Sloper’s.
Now when we remember that a period of less than thirty years
has sufficed to bring this character into notoriety such as we have
witnessed, and to give it a popularity which does not appear to be
decaying, it is not difficult to conceive how many of the myths of
history have thus arisen and developed. The only thing is that in
this case we are all able to pull the curtain aside and see the origin
for ourselves; whereas in others, their origin is lost in the mists
of antiquity, and we are compelled to accept, with or without a
grain of salt, what ancient men have said about them.
As I have selected Christ for my parallel case, let us now
examine the points of likeness in the two histories. The earliest
records of Jesus are no wilder in their improbability than the
story of Ally Sloper. Run through the apocryphal gospels, those
earliest narratives of Christ’s boyhood days, and you find him
turning children into kids because they hide themselves and refuse
to play with him; or, being run against by another lad and
knocked over, exclaiming, “As thou hast made me to fall, so shalt
thou fall and not rise,” immediately causing him to fall down and
die. Or, again, when he would show himself superior to the other
children, he would make sparrows of the mud in which they were
all playing and then cause his own to fly away, leaving theirs in
their primitive condition. Innumerable stories of this sort cluster
J
�6
around the early days of Jesus. We don’t believe them now, but
they were piously believed in by the Christians of the earliest
centuries of our era. Some day, when Ally Sloper shall be
numbered amongst the gods of the heathen, a pious writer may
select from his various records the less self-evident untruths, get
them canonized by the Church of his day, and set down the other
absurdities as “apocryphal.”
Men ask, “How is it Christ is accepted if he never lived ? Have
we not the gospels which proclaim his works ? Have not contemp
oraries added their words to those of the sacred writers 1 ” All
this may be admitted, if we are to accept as true all that has ever
been written; but in the case of Christ we must remember that
there is no more contemporary evidence of the reality of Christ's
person than there is of the reality of Ally Sloper’s. The one is
certainly fictitious, and there is every reason for believing that the
other is fictitious also. When men like Archdeacon Farrar give
away the only possible confirmation, that of Josephus, as an
interpolation and forgery, smaller Church-folk need not be over
nice in rejecting it as well.
The Ally Sloper myth has lived and grown because the humor
of his imaginary doings tickled the people of his day. The ignorant,
who are always amongst the religious enthusiasts, seem already to
accept him as a human being. Some will gravely tell you that at
Fair time they have seen him drive through the town with his lass
Tootsie. His character is so little overdrawn that those who
delight in tales of booze and feats of drunkenness regard him as a
“jolly good fellow.”
Christ came into popularity in another
fashion, but on similar lines. He was made the vehicle for
preaching submission to an overweighted and oppressed people.
All that was feminine and passive in human nature he was made
to glorify, and the sentimental followed his doctrines, whilst their
rulers saw how great a help such a religion would be to them in
diverting the minds of their conquered people from their sufferings,
—so great, indeed, that they eventually professed to embrace
the new religion, changing the direction of the worship to suit the
ends they had in view.
The sword and stake assisted to remove
any opposition to the new “faith.” To make Jesus the more
acceptable he was given a title which men could make into a pun,
for “ Christus,” anointed, was often written by the ancients as
“ Chrestos,” the Greek for a good fellow. To some, then, he
�7
became the Messiah of the Scriptures, whilst to others he was the
embodiment of a good sort of man; and all were equally well
pleased.
The more men examine into the early history of Christ, the less
they seem willing to believe it. It is the unenquiring who adhere
to it so tenaciously. Even many who now believe, laugh at the
“ true relics ” of the cross, the crown of thorns, the Virgin Mary’s
dress, and so on, of which the Christian Cathedrals have so many.
Protestants, like Sloperians, have wearied of the original Christ.
Sloper left his tricks and entered the arena of modern life; Christ
is no longer the Saviour of the World, the hero of the Atonement,
or an emptied God; he is now the King of Labor, the Socialist, the
Anarchist, the Leader of Armies, or anything else that suits the
palate of the hour. The Christ of our boyhood’s theology can be
but ill-recognised in the Jesus of the modern up-to-date preacher.
It only remains for the Editor of Ally Sloper to found a school,
public hall, or other useful institution, and to start a counterpart
movement to that set on foot by the earlier Christians to popularise
their new deity. Those who appeal so much and so often to the
name of Christ in connection with benevolent institutions may
yet live to see the name of Sloper over the portals of their like.
Be that as it may, it is difficult to see much essential difference
between the origin and development of the so-called “ histories ” of
those celebrated figure-heads, Christ and Sloper.
The Truth Seeker Pamphlets may be
had from
R. Forder, 28, Stonecutter Street, London, E.C.
A. & H. Bbadlaugh Bonner, 1 & 2, Tooks Court, Cursitor Street,
London, E.C.
“ Truth Seeker ” Company, 36, Villiers Street, Bradford.
Or all Newsagents to
order.
Printed and published by the “ Truth Seeker” Company, Bradford.
�THE
Truth Seeker.
Edited by JOHN GRANGE.
A Monthly Journal devoted to-Mental Freedom and Progress
SHOULD BE READ BY ALL FREETHINKERS.
PUBLISHED ON THE FIRST OF EACH MONTH.
LONDON:—R. FORDER, 28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.
BRADFORD:—J. W. GOTT, 36, Villiers Street.
“TRUTH SEEKER” PAMPHLETS.
Be
de
No. 1—Genesis and Science, by Stanley Jones
..
..
..
..01
No. 2—Christ and Ally Sloper, by Sam Standring
..
..
..
..01
No. 3—Secularism, by John Grange.......................................................... 0 1
No. i—The Decay of Belief, by C. Cohen
..
..
..
..01
No. 5—His Satanic Majesty, by S. H. Alison ..
..
..
..01
No. 6—Biography of A. B. Moss, by Wm. Heaford................................... 0 1
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Christ and Ally Sloper
Description
An account of the resource
Edition: 2nd ed.
Place of publication: [Bradford]
Collation: 7 p. : ill. (front. port.) ; 21 cm.
Series title: Truth Seeker Pamphlets
Series number: No. 2
Notes: Full-length portrait [of the author?] on front cover. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Alexander "Ally" Sloper is the eponymous fictional character of the comic strip Ally Sloper. He is one of the earliest comic strip characters and he is regarded as the first recurring character in comics. List of Truth Seeker pamphlets on back page. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Standring, Sam
Standring, George
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[The "Truth Seeker" Company]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1895]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N623
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Christ and Ally Sloper), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Ally Sloper (Fictional Character)
Freethought
Jesus Christ
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/63a73bbac429e61911145d1ab348776d.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=cMb6c0rblsM6Bg9MQmkbTO1LM5bKVsuGruoXri6YJsi10ddgwxnyCwvdH1rVEIfIzkektDtGPus0%7E5HePGgd9H9iM2iNiFpaQl4-XnNHEWD9RyNV7oGf4W9fXO82ePWRMmoWc1%7E-fuHTxTccId4XOceeiI8GQ4N6e6-t2jq54K7DI1jXfIw0zud9WM-FwZM1CxCCCjVccZHfZ%7Ej9y1o-GgspuP7aDpLmokp8bh488Z8OJHBGmoR5-Uq1ZvQ3HdTG9xksczwexAe0lJEqjgFHWGzqecBirhJlIZkeF9AihO7pUMCfOYIpiuij0OeTXuw1JMvgVJk40NV08vfdHq9wRw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
d8d26cbeb3d3f9ea6582b6b39bcafd2c
PDF Text
Text
THE
DEAN OF RIPON
ON THE
PHYSICAL RESURRECTION OF JESUS,
IN ITS BEARING ON THE
TRUTH OF CHRISTIANITY.
BY
THOMAS SCOTT.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
No. 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.
Price Sixpence.
�LONDON:
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTINBY STHEKT
HAY.MARK. ST, W.
�V
THE REV. DR HUGH M’NEILE
ON THE
RESURRECTION.
To
the
Editor
of the
“Times.”
Sir,—There is one passage in the “Bennett Judg
ment ” on which I desire, with your permission, to
publish a few observations. It is this—After dis
cussing the terms “ corporal,” “ natural,” “ true,” as
applied to the body of Christ, their Lordships say:
“The matters to which they relate are confessedly not
comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible by the
human understanding; the province of reason as applied to
them is, therefore, very limited, and the terms employed
have not, and cannot have, that precision of meaning which
the character of the argument demands.”
The subject-matter referred to is the risen body
of Christ, and I wish to call attention to the nature
of the proof we have of the resurrection of His
body. It is needless to comment on its importance.
Without the historical fact of the resurrection of
Christ’s body, Christianity crumbles into a myth.
We learn from St Luke that Christ showed him
self alive after his Passion by many infallible proofs
(reKpriptois). These are recorded by the Evangelists.
A
�6
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Neile
He said, “Behold my hands and my feet that it is I
myself. Handle me and see, for a spirit hath not
flesh and bones as ye see me have.” “Sic hse
actiones, loqui, ambulare, edere, bibere TeK^pia
sunt.”—Beza. All such proofs were addressed to
the senses of the Apostles> and the result was a
process of clear and conclusive reasoning. The
human mind is not capable of clearer proof on
any practical subject than that which is derived
from the testimony of the senses, and the conse
quent deductions of the reason. Such was the proof,
satisfactory, and, as far as human consciousness is
concerned, infallible, which was given of the Resur
rection of Christ. Before his death, his flesh was
similar to ours. “Forasmuch as the children are
partakers of flesh and blood, He also Himself
likewise took part of the same ” (avros irapaTrAija/ws
/zereaxe tG»v avr&v). His flesh, then, was an object of
sense, concerning which men might fairly reason—
concerning which reasonable men could not but
reason.
If, after his resurrection, his flesh had been some
thing altogether different—-if it had been something
not comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehen
sible by the human understanding—if the province
of reasoning as applied to it had been, therefore,
very limited—if the terms employed to describe it
had not, and could not have, that precision of
meaning which a proof of his resurrection demanded
—had this been so, how could his resurrection have
been proved, and if his resurrection be not proved,
reasonably and conclusively proved, where is Chris
tianity itself ?
But his flesh after his resurrection was appealed
to as matter of sense and argument and proof, and,
�on the Resurrection.
1
therefore, it was quite comprehensible by the human
understanding, and, therefore, the province of
reason as applied to it was perfect, and therefore
the terms employed to describe it had, and could
not but have, the precision of meaning indispensable
for establishing the fact that he was indeed risen
from the dead.
Deny the clear and conclusive province of reason
as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and you
cannot prove the resurrection of his body.
Admit the clear and conclusive province of reason
as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and you cannot
prove any presence whatever of his flesh in the Lord’s
Supper. Nay, you can prove its absence, for human
reason is altogether competent to the conclusion
that what cannot be seen, or felt, or tasted cannot
be flesh, whatever else it may be, and the question
here is not about something else but about flesh.
All this is made clearer still by contrast. Let the
subject under consideration be “ The Trinity.” Here
we can have no infallible proofs. We may have,
indeed, and we have, clear revelation, reasonably
attested to be revelation, and therefore entitled to
acceptance on authority, as little children accept on
authority; but the subject-matter is confessedly not
comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible,
by the human understanding. The province of
reasoning as applied to it is, therefore, very limited,
and the terms employed in revealing it have not
and cannot have that precision of meaning which
an argument between man and man demands.
Acute controversialists of the Church of Rome
have propagated much deception by treating as
analogous the mystery of the Trinity, and what
they call the mystery of the Sacrament. Under
�8
^Ihe Rev. Dr M'Neile on the Resurrection.
cover of this assumed analogy, strange bewildering
phrases have been introduced and applied to flesh
and blood — " spiritual,” “ supernatural,” “ sacra
mental,” “ mystical,” “ ineffable,” “ supralocal.”
But there is no ground for this. The mode of
the Divine existence is, indeed, a mystery, far
beyond the province of human reason; but flesh
and blood are not so, and bread and wine are not
so; and there is not the slightest intimation in
Holy Scripture of any mystery connected with the
Lord’s Supper. But ecclesiastical tradition? I
willingly leave to others the task of exploring that
troubled sea, which does indeed “ cast up mire and
dirt,” but I may cordially and devoutly embrace
the definition of mysteries as applied to the Lord’s
Supper in our Book of Common Prayer—“ pledges
of His love and for a continual remembrance of His
death, to our great and endless comfort.”
I am, Sir,
Your obliged and obedient servant,
HUGH M’NEILE.
The Deanery, Ripon, June 25.
�DR M’NEILE ON THE RESURRECTION.
N the number of the Times for Thursday, June
27, of the present year (1872), there appeared
the preceding letter on the Bennett Judgment,
addressed to the Editor by Dr Hugh M’Neile, Dean
of Ripon. To this letter I desire to call the special
attention of those who may wish that our religion,
whatever it may be, shall rest on the basis of solid
fact or ascertained truth. It would be scarcely pos
sible to exaggerate the importance of the issue which
the Dean of Ripon has most pertinently raised, or to
lay too much stress on the propositions by which he
believes, or appears to believe, that he has solved the
problem satisfactorily. Like many other clergymen
of the Church of England, and more especially
like many others of the party to which Dr M’Neile
is supposed to belong, he has been disturbed by
that Judgment of the Judicial Committee of Privy
Council which, acquitting Mr Bennett of formal
heresy, seems in his opinion to undermine the
very foundations of the faith of a large majority of
English churchmen. It is well to know what these
foundations are, and Dr M’Neile has exhibited them
in the clearest possible light. For the Judgment
itself, it is enough to say that it regards the whole
subject which furnished the ground of prose
cution for Mr Bennett’s assailants, as wrapped in
dense, if not in impenetrable, mists. Mr Bennett,
I
�Io
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
believing with them that Jesus Christ has ascended
into heaven (seemingly a local heaven above Mount
Olivet,) with that body which was nailed to the
cross and laid in the grave, believes also that he is
sensibly present in the Sacrament of the Altar, and
that being thus present, he is there to be adored
under the symbols of the bread and wine which have
been converted into his flesh and blood by the con
secration of the priest. Christ, therefore, who is
sensibly in heaven (for in the words of the Fourth
Article he has ascended into heaven with flesh,
bones, and all things appertaining to the perfection
of man’s nature) is also present sensibly at the same
time upon a thousand altars. The proposition, if
not actually heretical, looks much like a contradic
tion in terms : but as it does not formally controvert
or contradict any positive statement of the Thirtynine Articles, the defendant is entitled to an ac
quittal. Had this sentence of acquittal been pro
nounced without further comment, Dr M’Neile and
they who go with him would have suffered much less
distress, or perhaps would not have been distressed
at all. But the Judicial Committee was probably
not sorry to avail itself of the opportunity of en
larging the basis for the clergy by admitting as
much vagueness as possible in their engagements ;
and the means which it adopted for this purpose
was the assertion that the subject was one which
can never be really comprehended by anybody, and
that, therefore, a precise definition of the terms em
ployed in the treatment of it is an impossibility.
“ The matters to which they relate,” the Judicial
Committee insists, “ are confessedly not comprehen
sible, or very imperfectly comprehensible, by the
human understanding. The province of reason as
�-c..-
..A,-,., ,
on the Resurrection.
•■ ■-.<'/'ry;,' \
11
applied to them is, therefore, very limited, and
the terms employed have not, and cannot
have, that precision of meaning which the charac
ter of the argument demands.”
The plain inference of all indifferent persons must
be that the Judicial Committee of Privy Council
regards the subject as one which it is better not to
speak about, and therefore also not to think about,
or, at the least, as one on which no churchman
should censure or tease another. To argue upon
it requires that the terms used should carry with
them a precise meaning: but, as the Judicial
Committee holds, from the nature of the subject
they cannot be thus accurately used, and con
sequently the time spent in thinking or speaking
about it must be time wasted. It is, of course,
significant that the highest tribunal of the Church
of England should thus mark as useless or unpro
fitable the doctrine of the nature of the presence
of Christ in the Eucharist. But the declaration
of this tribunal is of greater importance in its
bearings on the traditional theology of the Chris
tian Church and of particular sects or parties in it.
It is not to be supposed that the large and powerful
section in the English Establishment, known popu
larly as Evangelicals or Low Churchmen, should fail
to see the danger into which some of the most im
portant articles of their creed are drawn; and we
can understand the eagerness with which Dr M’Neile
comes forward to repel this assault on what he
regards as the very foundations of the Christian
Faith.
For myself, and for the cause I strive to serve, I
am rejoiced that the Dean of Ripon has, in such
clear and unequivocal language, summoned his
�12
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
brethren, and, indeed, all Christendom to the fight.
There is now some prospect that ages of talking
and disputing may be followed by a grave and
calm discussion of the point at issue, and, as that
point is alleged to be an historical fact, by a final
determination whether it be indeed a fact or not. To
those who are simply anxious to ascertain the truth
of facts, it is a matter of supreme indifference how
the issue comes to be raised. The Apostle of the
Gentiles was thoroughly aware that some preached
Christ from motives which were anything but
creditable; but, so long as Christ was preached, he
was content and glad; and I confess a* satisfaction
not less complete on learning that the Judicial
Committee of Privy Council have been enabled by
a few passing remarks to accomplish that which
the most outspoken of liberal thinkers thus far,
it would seem, have failed, with all their efforts,
to achieve. Whether the trepidation excited by
these remarks is due in any measure to the position
occupied by the highest ecclesiastical tribunal of
the land, I do not care to ascertain. It is enough
that, by some means or other, the great question
between the traditionalists and their opponents
should be put in a fair way towards final settle
ment. I readily avail myself, therefore, of the
opportunity furnished by the letter of Dr M’Neile
to the Times, and, as it is of paramount importance
that his general argument should not be misrepre
sented, I shall take his statements seriatim, so that
my readers may at once see all that is involved in
them.
But at starting it may be said, without any feai*
of wronging the Dean of Ripon, that all his state
ments resolve themselves into the one proposition
�on the Resurrection.
13
that the foundation of his religion is a certain fact
on which the human reason can be fully exercised,
and which must be ascertained and accepted on
similar grounds to those on which we accept any
historical facts whatsoever. With this proposition
there can be no tampering; its value is gone if it
has to undergo any modification. We are not to
take the fact as meaning at one time one thing and
at another time another thing ;■ if a term which we
employ denotes a thing which, so far as all history
tells us, is subject to certain conditions, we are not
to take it as denoting something which exhibits
very different conditions. If we do, our conclusions
cannot possibly rest on evidence, and, if they do not
rest on evidence, they are worthless. Now Mr Ben
nett, following a large, indeed by far the largest, por
tion of that which is called Christendom, asserts that
the risen body of Christ (his flesh and his blood) is
present in the sacrifice of the Eucharist; and the
Dean of Ripon maintains that this proposition
strikes at the very root of Christianity as he under
stands the term. If it may be maintained that the
actual body of Christ, that body with which he was
crucified and was laid in the grave, and with which
he rose again, is present in a hundred or a thousand
places at the same time, what proofs, he asks, have
we that he was ever raised at all ? It must here be
remarked that Dr M’Neile summarily casts aside
all those more or less ingenious methods by which
some interpreters and commentators have endea
voured to accommodate their positions to the
character of the evidence which they have at their
command. He will have nothing to do with the
theories which tell us that we do not really know
what flesh and blood are, and which imply or
B
�14
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Neile
affirm that our knowledge cannot possibly deter
mine whether or not a body of flesh and blood
may become visible and invisible at will, may
pass through rocks or closed doors, may be free
of the law of gravitation, and may or may not be
present in many places at the same time. Thus
much certainly may be said for the commentators
who frame such theories, that, if they are justified
in forging the first links of their chain, there is no
reason why they should not add the last. If a body
of flesh and blood can live without food or drink,
and without the discharge of any of those bodily
functions which we are disposed to regard as essen
tial to life, there seems to be no sufficient warrant
for denying that it may be present at the same
time in more places than one, or even that it may
be ubiquitous. But, if this be so, it also follows
that we know nothing whatever of flesh and blood
and body, and that we are using terms with an
elastic meaning, which may be stretched and
modified at our will. But the nature of the
argument, if it is ever to satisfy the human mind,
requires that the terms should be used with pre
cision; and, if this cannot be done, then it is
obvious that no reasonable belief can possibly issue
from it. I
Against the methods of such commentators Dr
M’Neile enters, therefore, an emphatic protest. With
him terms are not to be modified and altered to suit
the needs of theological arguments. We know what
flesh is and what blood is, and we know what is
meant by a body of flesh and blood; and when we
speak of any of these bodies, we are not to predi
cate of them conditions of which human experience
can furnish no example, for it is obvious that the
�on the Resurrection,
J5
human mind cannot possibly have proof of these
conditions except from experience. If there may
he a hundred or a thousand conditions of bodily ex
istence of which human experience gives us no in
formation, it is self-evident that the whole subject
is removed beyond the province of human reason.
Thus far experience seems to show that a human
body cannot be in more places than one, cannot pass
through solid matter, cannot live without food, and
without the waste which is implied in the need and
the assimilation of food; but if, nevertheless, such a
body can be ubiquitous, or live without food, or
walk on the sea, or float in the air, there is abso
lutely no warrant of reason why it should not be
present at the same moment on all the altars of
Christendom. If this is what is meant by terms
which seem to speak of the risen body of Christ, it
is clear that we have and can have no evidence of
his resurrection. We may receive the assertion on
faith, but it will be to us an assertion with regard
to which human reason can have no function, and
with reference to which there can therefore be no
conviction. Such an assertion Dr M’Neile rejects
with abhorrence. His mind, his human reason, must
be thoroughly satisfied. He is certain that the
Divine Being never meant that it should not be
satisfied. That which God needed, was the free
assent of the human mind, and this assent cannot
be given to statements which that mind is obviously
unable to test.
Dr M’Neile is speaking, of course, of historical
facts, not of dogmas which may possibly refer to
eternal truths, which are confessedly incomprehen
sible. He is careful to contrast the one with the
other. "Let the subject under consideration,” he
B2
�j
6
Rev. Dr Hugh M'Nelle
says, “ be ‘ The Trinity.’ Here we can have no in
fallible proofs. We may have, indeed, and we have
clear revelation, reasonably attested to be revelation,
and therefore entitled to acceptance on authority;
but the subject-matter is confessedly not comprehen
sible, or very imperfectly comprehensible, by the
human understanding. The province of reasoning
as applied to it is therefore very limited, and the
terms employed in revealing it have not and cannot
have that precision of meaning which an argument
between man and man demands.”
If I were criticising the Dean of Ripon’s letter as
a whole, I might point to the strange conclusions
involved in these words. His own opinion is clear
enough, but it is scarcely in accordance with some
facts which are certainly historical. One of these
facts is that a large majority of Christendom has
for an indefinite length of time held that the subject
of the Trinity in Unity may undergo the most minute
dissection and be mapped out in terms employed
with a scientific accuracy of meaning. Each of the
three Divine Persons may in himself be incompre
hensible : but it is nowhere said that the doctrine
propounded concerning them is incomprehensible
also. On the contrary, no document can be pointed
out which is in form more severely technical than
the Athanasian Creed. There is no sort of intima
tion that the tdrms employed in it have not and
cannot have that precision of meaning which an
argument between man and man demands. It
may not be easy to see what attestation there can
possibly be for this revelation beyond the authority
of those who drew up and imposed this symbol on
Christendom; but it is something to know that in
spite of this rigid outlining of the whole of this
�on the Resurrection.
17
subject, which can come only from the most perfect
familiarity, the Dean of Ripon confesses that, while
in some way or other he believes the dogma, he
cannot comprehend it at all, or that at best he com
prehends it very imperfectly; and, moreover, that in
spite of the seeming precision of the several terms
used in the Athanasian Creed he cannot ascribe to
them any such character. In short, he admits that
his own notions on the subject are altogether misty,
and that from the nature of the subject it is im
possible that they can be anything else but misty.
It follows that the dogmas of the Incarnation, of
Atonement, Mediation, and Justification must all be
placed in the same class. For none of these can we
have any infallible proofs. The very gist of the
arguments urged by Dr M’Neile and the theologians
of his school or party generally is that the unaided
human reason could never have worked its way to
those doctrines: that their subject-matter is not
comprehensible, or very imperfectly comprehensible,
by the human understanding; and, therefore, of
those dogmas also our notions must remain misty.
In other words, the whole system of doctrines which
are popularly regarded as the essential character
istics of Christianity, relates to subjects on which it
is impossible to use terms with any such precision
of meaning as is absolutely demanded by arguments
between man and man, and about which, therefore,
by the confession of the Dean of Ripon there is not
much use in thinking or in speaking.
But clearly it would never do to admit that the
doctrines of Christianity are inaccurate'or incomplete
statements of matters in themselves unintelligible,
and to leave it at the same time to be supposed that
Christianity is represented by a misty fabric resting
�18
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Neile
on no solid foundations. It is the special complaint
of Dr M’Neile against the theologians of the Roman
Church that they really cut away such founda
tions “by treating as analogous the mystery of
the Trinity and what they call the mystery of the
Sacrament.” In the latter he holds that there is
really no mystery at all. In the Eucharist there
is no presence of any flesh or any blood, and he pro
tests therefore against the process by which “ under
cover of this assumed analogy, strange bewildering
phrases have been introduced and applied to flesh
and blood, 1 spiritual,’ ‘ supernatural,’ 1 sacramental,’
‘ mystical,’f ineffable,’ 1 supralocal.’ ” We come, there
fore, very near to the point of supreme importance
in these words of Dr M’Neile. The mode of the
Divine existence may be a mystery far beyond the
province of human reason : but he insists empha
tically that flesh and blood are not so, and that
bread and wine are not so. In other words, flesh
and blood, bread and wine, are things about which
we can use terms with a precision of meaning which
leaves no room for the fancy that flesh is bread,
and blood wine, or vice versa. When we speak of flesh
and blood, we speak of things whose nature has been
ascertained by the whole experience of mankind,
and about which that experience has never varied;
for if it has varied, then unless the extent of that
variation has been ascertained, precision of meaning
is gone. If, in spite of our supposed experience
to the contrary, water may sometimes assume the
qualities of fire or wine, it is clear that we cannot
apply with any scientific accuracy the terms used in
defining water. Hence with regard to flesh and
blood, bread and wine, we can trust to no assertions
except such as are attested by human experience;
�on the Resurrection.
19
and hence, finally, the general experience of man
kind that flesh cannot be ubiquitous, and must,
in fact, be strictly local, furnishes an insuperable
objection to the dogma which represents the flesh
of Christ as present on a thousand altars at once.
On this point Dr M'Neile has not the faintest
shadow of a doubt. He stakes everything on the
issue with the most unhesitating confidence. The
flesh of Christ after as before his resurrection was
and is flesh, subject to precisely the same definitions
as those which we apply to all other flesh; and he
insists that if this be not so, “ Christianity crumbles
into a myth,” for, apart from this, we can have no
evidence whatever of the fact of the physical or
material resurrection of his body from the grave.
But I am concerned for the present not so much
with the results of his arguments as with the argu
ments themselves; and I certainly have no tempta
tion to weaken the stress which Dr M’Neile in
his intense earnestness lays upon them. Far
from attempting to disguise the fact that, unless the
physical or material or bodily resurrection of
Jesus is as well attested as the battle of Hastings
or the surrender of Paris to the German armies, he
is left without any real foundation for his faith, he
asserts again and again that this must be so, not
only for himself, but for all who call themselves
Christians, and that the statement is, in fact, a selfevident proposition. He holds it as incontrovert
ible that a rational demonstration of the bodily
resurrection of Jesus is essential to a reasonable
faith in Christianity. It is impossible that a
more momentous issue can be raised for the tradi
tional theology of Christendom ; and it is happily a
tangible one. Unless we have adequate historical
�20
The Rev, Dr Hugh M'Neile
evidence for the resurrection of Christ’s body, Chris
tianity, Dr M’Neile insists, crumbles into a myth.
No room, I must here remark, is left for any misun
derstanding. In that significant, yet, for the tradi
tionalists not very satisfactory, book by which But
ler sought to establish the analogy between re
vealed religion and nature, no stress whatever is
laid on the physical reanimation of the body of
Christ; and the whole argument for human immor
tality with which the work begins seems altogether
to exclude the idea of any such reanimation. Butler’s
one point is that no living power is liable to
destruction; his argument (strange as it may
appear,) is that the body is a living power, and
therefore that it cannot be destroyed. Butler
is careful to distinguish most clearly this living
power from the material particles which we are in
the habit of speaking of as the body. The man who
has lost his arm or his leg makes use of a wooden or
a metal substitute; these limbs, therefore, have no
indispensable connexion with the living power; but
not only this,—the material particles which make up
the outward and tangible form are in a state of per
petual flux, and no particle remains in this sensible
frame for more than six or seven years. Hence the
particles which compose a man’s brain or stomach
have been assimilated by the living power, and been
rejected by it many times over in the space of sixty
or seventy years. That event which we call death
is, therefore, in one main feature, only a sudden
accomplishment of that which is being done by
slow process during that which is called life ; and
as the living power which assimilated these
material particles was in no way affected by the
gradual loss of them, so there is no reason to sup
�on the Resurrection.
21
pose that it is affected by the sudden deposition of
the whole. The living power by the very necessity
of the case lives on; and as it has made use of an
infinite series of particles, and as the resumption
of all these particles is a manifest absurdity and
impossibility, it follows that the particles which
are thrown off from or by the body are thrown
off once and for all. It follows further, and as a
self-evident inference, that if the human entity be
a living power, and if no living power can be de
stroyed, then there is no such thing as the death of
the body, and therefore that there is no such thing
as a resurrection of the body in the sense of a re
animation of that which has been for a time inani
mate. Butler’s argument is, therefore, absolutely
opposed to the notion of a resurrection of the flesh,
except in a sense which they who believe in the re
surrection of the flesh would regard, and justly
regard, as explaining it away. Before it can be
brought within Butler’s system, flesh must be made
-synonymous with body, and body must be defined
as the living power which can make use of mate
rial particles for a special purpose, but which
is quite independent of them, being itself alto
gether impalpable, invisible, inapprehensible by
the senses. It has been absolutely necessary for
me to bring out this clearly in order to show
that Dr M’Neile is not maintaining the same system.
In truth, he could not do so, for, although Butler
nowhere denies in terms the physical resurrection or
reanimation of the body of Jesus, all that his argument
can do is to prove that the reanimation of the flesh
was and is confined to the one instance of the resur
rection of Jesus, and that therefore his resurrection
is wholly unlike the resurrection which alone can
�22
The Rev. Dr Hugh M’Neile
be predicated of ordinary men whose material forms,
not being speedily revivified, decay. Butler has,
indeed, an Anastasis; but it is a rising up, not a
rising again; and, as his argument gains nothing by
proving historically that in one instance a dead body
was, after a short time, reanimated, so he makes no
attempt to prove it. It must, however, be remarked
that, scientifically, his argument does tend to prove
that the so-called resurrection of Jesus, if it occurred,
was the revival of a man who has been in a swoon.
According to Butler, a material particle which has
been rejected by or has passed from the body, has
been rejected or has passed from it for ever. At
the moment which we call death, it deposits all
material particles, and does this for ever; it follows
then that, as this may not be said of the body of
Jesus, the event called death had not, in this
instance, taken place, and that it was, therefore,
simply a case of suspended animation in the form
of coma or swoon. I am not concerned here with
the truth or the falsehood of Butler’s argument,
which philosophically acquires great strength from
the fact that it makes body, mind, soul, and spirit
to be one and the same thing, and thus, exhibiting
in the fullest light the absolute indivisibility of
man, makes his immortality depend on this indi
visibility, inasmuch as living power cannot be
destroyed. This may be true or not true; but it is
of' the utmost consequence, in dealing with the
letter of the Dean of Ripon, to show that not all
Christians can be regarded as upholding his position
that, “ without the historical fact of the resurrec
tion of Christ’s body, Christianity crumbles into a
myth.” As a matter of fact, a book which is
approved and taken up for university and ordina-
�* ■’ \'r
'-r-1//.1.
on the Resurrection.
^fcv'rry /y* r;y.<
23
tion examinations is found to uphold the thesis that
the reanimation of the body of Christ is not in the
least necessary for the existence of Christianity,
and to imply further, that such a reanimation
cannot throw the least light on the nature of
human life and so-called human death, or on the
rising upwards to a higher and better state of that
living power which, for a time, has been content to
manifest its existence by means of an assemblage of
material particles, which, by a constant process, it
assimilated and has thrown off.
This process manifestly cannot be stated as an
historical fact occurring at a definite moment; and
Dr M’Neile would doubtless regard this mode of
looking at the resurrection of Jesus as not less
abominable than a blank denial of it. His termi
nology and the terminology of Bishop Butler have
both alike the same merit of being perfectly clear;
and the latter excludes the idea of a physical reani
mation of so-called dead bodies as much as the
formei' asserts the reanimation of the body of Christ
to be the sole and indispensable foundation of
Christianity. If I may seem to state the same
proposition more than once, it is because Dr M’Neilehimself exhibits his own convictions from as many
points of view as he can, in order to shut out all
possible misconceptions. Hence he fastens with
especial earnestness on the phrase used in the
Acts in speaking of the several Christophanies
after the resurrection. “ We learn from St Luke,”
he says, “ that Christ showed himself alive after his
Passion by many infallible proofs (7eKju»jptots).”
It is well known that the word reKppypiov denotes
absolute demonstrative evidence, or at least the very
strongest kind of proof of which any given thing is
w il..
�24
The Rev. Dr Hugh M 'Neile
susceptible; and it is precisely such evidence as
this which he thinks that the Evangelists have left
to us of the Resurrection. Hence without the least
misgiving that a link or links in the chain of rea
soning may be wanting, he cites the words which
Jesus is said to have uttered, “ Behold my hands
and my feet that it is I myself. Handle me and see,
for a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see me
have,” and with these he quotes the words of Beza :
“ Sic hae actiones, loqui, ambulare, edere, bibere
p/jpia sunt,” winding up with some sentences of
such extreme importance that I give them here in
full.
“ All such proofs were addressed to the senses of
the Apostles, and the result was a process of clear
and conclusive reasoning. The human mind is not
capable of clearer proof on any practical subject
than that which is derived from the testimony of
the senses and the consequent deductions of the
reason. Such was the proof, satisfactory, and, as far
as human consciousness is concerned, infallible, which
was given of the resurrection of Christ. Before his
death his flesh was similar to ours. “For as much
as the children are partakers of flesh and blood,
he ulso himself likewise took part of the same,
airos irapairXrjcriws fiereoye t&v avruv. His flesh, then,
was an object of sense, concerning which men
might fairly reason, concerning which reasonable
men could not but reason.”
If these words mean anything, they mean that
we may predicate of the risen or reanimated body
of Jesus everything that may be predicated of human
bodies generally, or, in other words, of all flesh and
blood, and by parity of reasoning that we may not
predicate of it anything which cannot be predicated
�on the Resurrection.
*5
of flesh and blood generally; for, if this be allowed,
the matter is at once removed beyond the province
of reason and the senses, within which the Dean of
Ripon insists that it is to be retained. Now, there
are certain things which must be predicated of the
bodies of all men. If we speak of them as eating
and drinking, we presuppose the processes and phe
nomena of digestion and excretion ; if we speak of
them as walking or moving, we presuppose not merely
exertion and consequent weariness, but exertion
and motion under certain definite and invariable
conditions. If any one comes and tells us that
a man, like the cow in the nursery rhyme, jumped
over the moon, or that he walked through a six-feet
thick wall, or that he could show himself and vanish
at will, we should say at once that his statements
might possibly be true so far as his report of what
he thought he had seen was concerned, but that if
it was true, then the creature who did these things
was not made of flesh and blood, but had an organi
sation so entirely different from man, that no points
of likeness could be traced between the one and the
other. If we were told that Mr Disraeli had on
a given day spent many hours in walking round
and round Landseer’s lions in Trafalgar-square, we
might think it strange; if we were told that he had
done this without hat, coat or boots, we might think
it still more strange, but we need not resort to any
further supposition by way of explaining the occur
rence than that he had lost his senses. But if we
were told that he had leaped up from the back of
one of these lions to the top of the Nelson column
and had repeated this exploit ad libitum, we should
have no hesitation in either dismissing the story as
an impudent lie or saying that the person who did
�26
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
this was neither Mr Disraeli nor any human being;
and that, as no such being had ever yet come within
the range of human experience, we must not only
disbelieve the tale, but even disbelieve our own
senses if we fancied that we saw any such thing as
this. It is altogether more likely that we should
be mistaken or that by some means or other we
should be made the victims of an optical delusion,
than that a creature who had a man’s body could
perform acts which all the results of human ex
perience would forbid us to predicate of any man.
In short, if we speak of a man, we speak of a being
who eats and drinks in order to renew the waste of
the bodily tissues and whose eating and drinking is
invariably followed by the process of digestion and
by its results; who cannot go through solid sub
stances or walk on water or float in the air; who
cannot make himself invisible or visible by any
act of the will, but who must come and go, and in
either case must remain visible until he passes
beyond the range of vision or unless some object
cuts him off from the view of the spectator.
So long as our predication follows these laws or
results of human experience, we can treat it as
a strictly reasoning process which appeals directly
and absolutely to our senses. But, according to Dr
M’Neile, there can be no reasoning process, and con
sequently no reasonable conviction, where these
laws or conditions are not observed; and thus he
adds with emphatic earnestness :
“ If, after Christ’s resurrection, his flesh had been
something altogether different,—if it had been
something not comprehensible, or very imperfectly
comprehensible by the human understanding,—if
the province of reasoning as applied to it had been,
�,•-1.v.•,>»>AV‘>:
on the Resurrection.
•*. v*.w.a .•,»
27
therefore, very limited,—if the terms employed to
describe it had not, and could not have, that pre
cision of meaning which a proof of his resurrection
demanded,—had this been so, how could his resur
rection have been proved, and, if his resurrection
be not proved, reasonably and conclusively proved,
where is Christianity itself?”
I am not here concerned with the answer to this
question; but the extreme importance of the argu
ment compels me to repeat that, in Dr M’Neile’s
judgment, the province of reasoning with regard to
the risen body of Jesus is not very limited, that the
subject is not imperfectly comprehensible by the
human mind, and that we may, therefore, demand
such reasonable and conclusive proof of the fact as
is in harmony with the whole course and character
of experience,—nay, that, in the absence of such
proofs, we are mere fools if we give credit to it.
To avoid all possibility of misconception or
injustice, I give the rest of Dr M’Neile’s argument
in his own words, and without breaking in upon
them with any comments:
“ But his flesh after his resurrection was appealed
to as matter of sense and argument and proof, and,
therefore, it was quite comprehensible by the human
understanding, and, therefore, the province of reason
as applied to it was perfect, and therefore the terms
employed to describe it had, and could not but
have, the precison of meaning indispensable for
establishing the fact that he was indeed risen from
the dead.
“ Deny the clear and conclusive province of reason
as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and you
cannot prove the resurrection of his body.
�28
fhe Rev. Dr Hugh NV Nelle
“Admit the clear and conclusive province of
reason as applied to the risen flesh of Christ, and
you cannot prove any presence whatever of his
flesh in the Lord’s Supper. Nay, you can prove
its absence, for human reason is altogether com
petent to the conclusion that what cannot be seen,
or felt, or tasted, cannot be flesh, whatever else it
may be, and the question here is not about some
thing else, but about flesh.”
With this theological issue as between Dr M’Neile
and the Sacerdotalists I have nothing to do. My
business is with the propositions involved in his
words; and among these are (1) that the risen flesh
of Christ is quite comprehensible by the human
mind; (2) that the province of reason as applied to
it is perfect; (3) that unless we can predicate of
that risen flesh all that we can predicate of any
other flesh, and nothing more, the human reason
cannot be exercised upon it at all, and therefore
that on this subject there can be no clear and rea
sonable proof, and therefore no solid and reasonable
conviction, inasmuch as by the change of definition
we have substituted something else (whatever that
may be) for the thing defined,—and thus we should
find ourselves in the present instance professing to
speak about flesh while in reality we are speaking
about that which (whatever it may be) is not flesh
at all.
Now nothing can be clearer, and to the human
mind and reason more satisfactory and conclusive,
than this. Certainly, if it be necessary to the defi
nition of flesh that it should be capable of being
seen, felt, and tasted, then the Sacerdotalists cannot
without absurdity and falsehood maintain that the
flesh of Christ is present whenever the sacrifice of
�on the Resurrection.
29
the Eucharist is offered, that is, in hundreds or in
thousands of places at once. But here we make one
more step in advance. Dr M’Neile’s argument is
here the same as that of the notification given to
weak brothers at the end of the Communion Office
in the Book of Common Prayer, that although the
elements are to be received by communicants kneel
ing, yet no adoration is thereby intended to be done
to them on the score of any corporeal presence of
Christ in the Sacrament, inasmuch as it is against
the truth of his natural body that it should be pre
sent in more places than one, and his body, being, in
heaven, cannot also be upon the earth. Hence
we are to conclude that the compilers of the Prayer
Book shared the conviction of Dr M’Neile, that the
risen body of Christ is subject to the laws and con
ditions to which other fleshly bodies are subject, and
that if we predicate of it that which may not be
predicated of other fleshly bodies, we either deny
its existence or convert it into something else, and
thus put it beyond the province of reason,—which is
not to be done without cutting away at the same
time the very foundations of Christianity.
Without entering into the question of historical
fact, we may here ask whether this position, emi
nently satisfactory though it be to the human rea
son, is altogether in accordance with the statements
in the Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. Nei
ther from Dr M’Neile nor from the compilers of the
Prayer Book have we received any technical defini
tion of flesh and body; but we have already seen
that there are sundry things which cannot be predi
cated of human bodies, or of any flesh and blood
with which we are acquainted. Thus, for instance,
so far as human experience has gone, it is as much
c
�30
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Neile
a contradiction of fact to say that they can fly, or
go through a solid mountain, as it is to say that
they can be in more than one place at a time. So,
again, we should be bound to say that a being who
could subsist without food, or who could receive
food without being further subject to the processes
of digestion, could not possibly be a man, and that
the substance of which his body or form was com
posed, whatever else it might be, could not possibly
be flesh. But without going further than the Prayer
Book, we have not merely the statement already
cited that it is contrary to the truth of Christ’s natu
ral body that it should be present in more than one
place, but the assertion in the fourth Article that
he ascended into heaven with the same body which
was crucified and raised again from the grave,
and that this body consisted of flesh, bones, and all
things appertaining to the perfection of man’s
nature.* We cannot even conceive of living flesh
apart from blood; indeed, to use Dr M’Neile’s
formula, living flesh without blood, whatever it
may be, is certainly not that which we understand
by the term, and is a something or other utterly
incomprehensible by the human mind, and therefore
altogether removed beyond the province of reason.
Further, if any physiologist were asked to name
the various things appertaining to the perfec
tion of man’s nature, he would give to blood a
place quite as prominent as that of flesh and bones,
* It has been urged by some, that the word Hood has been
omitted in this article by a somewhat disingenuous evasion, in
order to avoid a formal contradiction of the expression of Paul,
that “flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” All
that I have to do is to insist that blood is necessarily included
under the phrase “ all things appertaining to the perfection of
man’s nature.”
�on the Resurrection.
3i
and, as of equal importance with these, he would
reckon perfect action of all the organs,;—a perfect
action of the brain for the exercise of the highest
thought, and a perfect condition of the digestive
functions for the conversion of food into blood.
Other things may be not less necessary; but with
out these he would say that human nature cannot
exist, and that together with these there must be
certain conditions within which man must by his
very organisation be fettered. Thus he is formed for
walking or running on his feet, not for flying; he
may swim in the water, but he cannot walk upon
it; he may leap for a few feet in the air, but he
cannot rise through it except in a balloon. Now
when in the fourth Gospel we are told that after
Mary and two of the disciples had taken up their
position at the door of the sepulchre, she saw two
angels in white whom she had not seen on entering,
it may be imagined that the angels had come through
the solid rock or earth; for no one has contended
that the bodies of angels consist of flesh, bones,
and other things appertaining to the perfection of
man’s nature. But the body of Jesus after his re
surrection can appear and vanish at will. This is
so far common to all the Christophanies, that it is
unnecessary to specify instances. It can also go
through closed doors, for it is an evasion, from which
Dr M’Neile would doubtless shrink with horror, to
say that anything else can be meant when in the
Johannine narrative we read that “ when the doors
were shut, where the disciples were assembled, Jesus
came and stood in the midst.” It is ridiculous, if
not profane, to suppose that one who had just burst
the barriers of the grave should have to knock at
the door to ask for admission, and if the doors were
C 2
'
', .
�32
The Rev, Dr Hugh M'Neile
♦
open, it cannot be said that they were shut. Again,
his risen body, which moves by mere volition,
may be seen and handled; but human experience
certainly knows nothing of any man capable of
walking about while through his hands and his
feet might be seen the perforations caused by
the nails used in crucifixion, and with a wound
in his side so large that a human hand might be
thrust through it. Further, unless he ascended into
heaven with these perforations and this wound, it
must be supposed either (1) that he had the power
of putting on the appearances of these wounds at
will, so that they would thus be pretences rather
than realities; or (2) that these wounds were
gradually healed in the interval between the
resurrection and the ascension, if according to
the Acts we are to assume that forty days passed
between the two events. Yet more, the body of
Jesus can eat and drink; but the narratives
which speak of his doing so manifestly ascribe
the acts not to any need of the sustenance, but
simply to the desire of showing to the disciples
that he can eat and drink,—to prove, in short, that
he is. not a ghost (whatever this may be),—a fact
which at other times he bids them to test by handling
him. Here already we have a number of acts
predicated of the risen Jesus which could not
possibly be predicated, according to all human
experience, of any man whatsoever. Any one
of them would be held universally to interfere
with the very definition of man, of flesh and of
blood. Lastly, the body of which these acts, utterly
impossible according to human experience and the
conclusions of reason, are predicated, and which
before the crucifixion has walked on the water,
�on the Resurrection.
33
leaves the earth from the top of a hill, and rises
into the air, until at last a cloud veils him from the
sight of his disciples, who are told by the two
men in white apparel who then appear, that he
has gone away into heaven.
Thus, far from having in the risen body of Jesus
a subject perfectly comprehensible by the human
mind and reason, the province of reason as applied
to it being perfect, we have something which utterly
baffles the human mind, and with regard to which
the province of reasoning is so limited as to pre
clude altogether that precision in the use of terms
which an argument between man and man demands.
I perfectly agree with Dr M’Neile that the question
is about flesh and not about something else; nor have
I the slightest doubt that, “the human reason is alto
gether competent to the conclusion that what cannot
be seen, or felt, or tasted cannot be flesh, whatever
else it may be.” But, if I am to trust my reason at
all, I am equally sure that a being who can live
without food, or who can receive food without
digesting it, who can come and vanish and go
through closed doors at will, who can so modify his
form and features that those, who have known him
best fail to recognise him, who can walk on water
and float through the air to a local heaven, is cer
tainly not a man with a body of flesh organised
with everything appertaining to the perfection of
man’s nature, whatever else he may be. He is
thus a person with regard to whom the province of
reason is very limited, and, indeed, cannot be said
to exist at all I and as, where the reason cannot be
exercised there cannot be reasonable proof and
reasonable conviction of a bodily resurrection, it
follows, according to the Dean of Ripon, that Chris
tianity has crumbled into a myth.
�34
The Rev, Dr Hugh M'Neile
Thus, without entering on the question whether
the Gospels or the Acts are historically trustworthy,
my task is accomplished. The Dean of Ripon insists
that all arguments between man and man require
complete precision of meaning in the terms em
ployed ; and we have seen that every one of the
terms employed in speaking of the risen body of
Christ is used in the Gospels and the Acts
with as little precision of meaning as any of
those which, when used by Sacerdotalists who
maintain the doctrine of transubstantiation or
any kindred dogma, Dr M’Neile rejects as inaccu
rate and worthless.
We have also seen that
there is no ground or warrant in the New Testa
ment for the assertion of Beza that the actions
of speaking, walking, eating, and drinking are
physical and senfeible proofs that the risen body
of Christ was the body of a man, a body of flesh and
blood. Were we, I repeat, to see before us now a
being who could eat and drink, but who needed not
to do either and in whom these acts would not, or
need not, be followed by any process of digestion,
who could walk as men walk, but who could do so
on water and in the air as well as on land, and who
could pass through solid substances, we should say
that, whatever else he might be, he could not be a
man, and that his body could not possibly be com
posed of flesh, blood, and bones like our own. We
should say this, even if we saw such a being with
our own eyes ; but how much time would it take
before we could convince ourselves that we were
not under a delusion, or cheated, or duped, and how
much longer would it be before we accepted any such
descriptions and gave credit to them as facts on the
testimony of others ? If we heard any persons bear
�on the Resurrection.
35
witness to the existence of such a being, how would
this differ from the evidence of those Homeric persons
who saw Venus and Mars mingling in the battles of
men, and saw not the blood but the ichor stream
ing from their wounds? We have no need, there
fore to examine the testimony, if any such there be,
unless we abandon the position which Dr M’Neile
insists that we are bound to maintain. We are
dealing, he says, with things which come strictly
within the province of reason ; and we have seen
that the various actions attributed in the Gospels
to Jesus after the resurrection, and indeed before
it, show that, whatever his body may have been
it was a body which was essentially not that of a
human being.
But Dr M’Neile pleads that his flesh after his resurrection was appealed to as matter of sense and
argument and proof. We have seen that if it was
appealed to, the appeal was made to something not
more really identical with human flesh than the
“ corpus Christi ” after the bread has in the Eucharist
undergone consecration. But what knowledge have
we that any such appeal was made ? It is singularly
significant that, although in the apostolic discourses
in the Acts the fact of the resurrection of Jesus is
asserted, no reference is made to any of the incidents
which in the Gospels and in the first chapterthe
Acts are said to have accompanied the crucifixion,
the resurrection, and the subsequent Christophanies.
Of only one man have we at first hand the state
ment that he had “ seen the Lord.” That man is
Paul, the Apostle of the Gentiles: but we know that
the instance to which he refers was a vision, and
we might be justified therefore in inferring that the
other Christophanies of which he speaks belong to
1
�36
The Rev. Dr Hugh NT Nelle
events of the same class. But of what use in any
case is his testimony to Dr M’Neile, seeing that Paul
is the one who emphatically asserts that flesh and
blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and that,
therefore, we shall all be changed, in other words,
that we shall pass into conditions with regard to
which the terms employed cannot have the precision
which arguments between man and man demand ?
But how will it be, if for a moment we suppose that
Paul meant to refer to historical events ? The narra
tive of the Acts states that at some period soon after
the ascension the whole number of disciples Was
120; it also says that the Apostles as they gazed
upwards from Mount Olivet learnt from the two men
in white apparel that the Jesus whom they had seen
ascending should descend again in like manner for the
final judgment, the inference indubitably being that
in the interval no earthly eye should ever see him,
except possibly in trance or vision. In fact, the
coming of the Comforter, which was declared indis
pensable to their spiritual life and growth, was made
dependent on his absence. But Paul, while men
tioning certain Christophanies, some of which may
possibly be among the instances mentioned in the
Gospels, says that in one case he was seen by above
500 brethren at once, thus implying that the whole
number of the disciples considerably exceeded 500,
and adds that he was after this seen of James, then
of all the Apostles. In other words, these mani
festations took place after the ascension, i. e., after
an event subsequent to which the Apostles were
told that there would be none until the final
manifestation for judgment; or else they were
mere visions.
Hence, as I have been obliged
to maintain in my ‘ English Life of Jesus,’
�on the Resurrection.
37
“ either Paul’s statement in an undoubtedly genuine
epistle is delusive, or the narrative in Acts 1 is a
credulous imagination, and from this dilemma there
is no escape.” (P. 334.)
But the book of the Acts is the only one from
which we obtain any information about the so-called
witnesses to the resurrection* I need not here go
over the proof, which I have fully given in the
‘English Life of Jesus,’ that we have not the evidence
of any of them. All that we have is a number of
traditions or narratives, written by whom we know
not, and the composition of which even Dr Tischendorf cannot carry back nearer than fifty or sixty
years to the period of the crucifixion. But, as I have
been compelled to show, it would make no difference
if he could take them further. The narratives
are themselves inconsistent, contradictory, and
in many instances (and these the most important of
all) mutually exclusive, and therefore unhistorical.
We are therefore, by the canons laid down by Dr
* Of one sentence in Dr M’Neile’s letter to the Times I have,
thus far, taken no notice. It is that in which he says, that “ we
learn from St Luke that Christ shewed himself alive after his
Passion,” &c. The meaning of this phrase is, that the book of the
Acts was written by the author of the third gospel. On any show
ing, however, Luke, if he wrote the third gospel, was not one of
the Twelve, and there is nothing but a mere popular tradition
which speaks of him as one of the seventy. The statement seeks
to arrogate for the third gospel and for the Acts an authority
which they do not possess. There is no evidence that Luke wrote
either: nor is it necessary for me to do more than to cite the pas
sage relating to this alleged fact in my ‘ English Life of Jesus : ’
“To assume identity of authorship from the similarity of two pre
faces in an age when pseudonymous writings were as numerous as
falling leaves in autumn, is an excess of credulity. The gospel
of Luke bears no resemblance, in point of style, to the preface to
that gospel, and the preface to the Acts is not much in harmony
with the language of the book which follows it. A conclusion
�38
The Rev. Dr Hugh M'Nelle
M’Neile, driven to the conclusion that for the phy
sical resurrection of Jesus we have absolutely no
evidence whatever.
That this conclusion is the death-blow of Chris
tianity, I am really not at all concerned by the argu
ment to say. It may be fatal to Christianity as
conceived by Dr M’Neile; but the term is unfor
tunately, or fortunately, an elastic one, and, as in the
case of flesh, body, blood, &c., we need an accurate
definition of the term. It is possible that in a sense
which to others, and perhaps hereafter to himself,
may be very real, Christianity may continue to
exist apart from a foundation which is seen to be
one of imagination, not of fact. Certain it is that the
Christianity of Butler’s Analogy does -not need it;
and by the side of the English Bishop of Durham
just as plausible (if not more reasonable) would be that some
writer quite distinct from the author of Luke and Acts, has pre
fixed some verseB of his own before two books which, up to that
time, exhibited no signs of identity of authorship. However this
may be, when two alleged histories are proved to be not histories,
it matters nothing whether they are said to come from one or from
two authors.”—Pp. 328, 329. I can but repeat here that the line of
argument which Dr M’Neile has chosen to follow, in his letter to the
editor of the Times, has made it altogether unnecessary for me to
enter into the historical investigation of the authorship and
the trustworthiness of the gospel narratives. But in that
department, until my conclusions are refuted, and the evi
dence on which they rest is shown to be inconclusive or
erroneous, I may legitimately regard my task as already accom
plished. This evidence and these conclusions I have set forth
with the utmost care in my ‘English Life of Jesus,’ and it only
remains for me to challenge the attention of Dr M’Neile, and of
all who in any measure share his convictions, to a work treating
of matters which Dr M’Neile regards, or professes to regard, ag
indispensably necessary to the existence of Christianity itself.
Above all other men, he is bound by the terms of his letter to
the Times to give to the pages of that work the most patient and
serious consideration. I trust that I may not have cause to ascribe
to him, as to the Christian Evidence Society, a disingenuous and
cowardly evasion of a plain and an imperious duty.
�on the Resurrection.
39
I may place the Swedish Bishop Tegner, who puts
into the mouth of the priest of Balder in his poem
of ‘Frithiof’ the following words :
A Balder dwelt once in the South, a virgin’s son,
Sent by Allfather to expound the mystic runes
Writ on the Nornas’ sable shields, unknown before.
Peace was his war-cry, love to men his shining
sword,
And Innocence sat dove-like on his silver helm.
Pious he lived and taught, until at last he died,
And ’neath far-distant palms his grave in glory
shines.
The heathen priest goes on to say that his doc
trine ■ may one day come to Norway; but the
Christian bishop clearly thinks that a man may
have a fair and true idea of Christianity, even
though he regards Jesus as one who never rose
physically from the grave, and who, moreover, died
a natural death.
Such a conception of Christianity certainly in
volves none of the difficulties with which Dr
M’Neile struggles in vain, and which the so-called
Christian Evidence Society deliberately and per- .
sistently ignores.
*
Am I to conclude that this conception is at once
the doctrine of the Church of England, and the
belief of English Churchmen in general ?
THOS. SCOTT,
11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.E.
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may be had on addressing
a letter enclosing the price in postage stamps to Mr Thomas
Scott, 11 The Terrace, Farquhar Road, Upper Norwood,
London, S.N.
Eternal Punishment. An Examination of the Doctrines held by the Clergy of the
Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
Better 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.
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.
Against Hero-Making in Religion. By Prof. F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Ritualism in the Church of England. By “ Presbyter Anglicanus.” Price fid.
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. fid.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed
Clergyman of the Church of England. Price Is. Id., post free.
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 fid.
Redemption, Imputation, Substitution, Forgiveness of Sins, and Grace. Price 6d.
Basis of a New Reformation. Price 9d.
Miracles and Prophecies. Price 6d.
The Church : the Pillar and Ground of the Truth. Price 6d.
Modern Orthodoxy and Modern Liberalism. Price 6d.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of England. fid.
** 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 fid.
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 fid.
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 I., II., III. Price 6d. each Part.
�List of Publications—continued.
A Reply
to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot
Rely on the Bible ? ” By Professor F. W. Newman.
Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely on, if we
cannot Rely on the Bible ? ” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of
Norwich. Price 6d.
By the Author of "The
Pilgrim and the Shrine,” “ The Meaning of the Age,” &c. Price 6d.
The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation. A Letter, by M.P.
Price 6d.
The True Temptation of Jesus. By Professor F. W. Newman. With Portrait.
Price 6d.
On Public Worship. Price 3d.
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “ The Philosophy of Necessity.” 6d.
A Reply to the Question, “ Apart from Supernatural Revelation, what
is the Prospect of Man’s Living after Death?” By Samuel Hinds,
D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d.
Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangers of the Church of England.”
By W. G. Clark, M. A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Price 6d.
Tns Twelve Apostles. Price 6d.
The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible. By a Country Vicar. Price 6d.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher.
Price 6d.
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A.,
F.R.S. In Three Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
The Finding of the Book. By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus. Price 2s.
On Moral Evil. By Rev. Chas. Voysey. Price 6d.
The Utilisation of the Church Establishment.
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation,
Considered. By W. Jevons. Price 6d.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Esta
blished Church. Price 6d.
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I.—Its
\
Influence on the Intellect. Price 6d. Part II.—Its Influence on the Development
of the Conscience. Price 6d.
On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price 6d.
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel Hinds,
D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d.
A.I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I., II., and III.
Price fid. each Part.
The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price 6d.
Reason versus Authority. By W. O. Carr Brook. Price 3d.
An Appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown. 3d.
The Voysey Case. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d.
Realities. By P. A. Taylor, M.P.
On the Causes of Atheism. By F. W. Newman. With Portrait. Price fid.
The Bible ; Is it “ The Word of God ? ” By T. L. Strange, late Judge of the High
Court of Madras. Price 6d.
A Woman’s Letter. Price 3d.
An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. By Rev. Chas. Voysey.
With Portrait. Price fid.
Thirty-Nine Questions on the Thirty-Nine Articles. By Bev. J. Page
Hopps. With Portrait. Price 3d.
Intellectual Liberty. By John Robertson. Price 6d.
The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. By Moncure D. Conway. With
Portrait. Price 6d.
Theology of the Past and the Future. By M. Kalisch, Ph.D. Reprinted
from Part I. of his Commentary on Leviticus. With Portrait. Price Is.
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines. By Prof. F. W. New
man. Price 3d.
�List of Publications—continued.
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education. By “Pres
byter Anglicanus.” Price 6d.
The J udgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr Voysey.
Some remarks by J. D. La Touche, Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. Price 3d.
A Challenge to the Members of the Christian Evidence Society; By
Thos. Scott.
The Tendencies of Modern Religious Thought. By the late Rev. Jas. Granbrook. Price 3d.
On the Formation of Religious Opinions. By the late Rev. Jas. Cranbrook;
Price 3d.
The Collapse of the Faith; or, the Deity of Christ as now taught by the
Orthodox. By Rev. W. G. Carroll, A.M., Rector of St Bride”s Dublin.
Price 6d.
Pleas
for
Free Inquiry. By M.A., Trinity College, Cambridge. Parts I. audit.
Price 6d. each Part.
the Hindrances to Progress in Theology. By the late Rev Jas. Cran
brook Price 3d.
A Reply to the Question, “ Shall I seek Ordination in the Church of England ?”
By Samuel Hinds, D. D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d.
A Lecture on Rationalism. By the Rev Chas. Voysey. Price 6<L
A Lecture on the Bible. By the Rev. Chas. Voysey. Price 6d.
On Church Pedigrees. Parts I. and II. By the Rev. T. P. Kirkman, M.A.,
On
F.R.S. With Portrait. Price 6d. each Part.
Jewish Literature and Modern Education ; or, the Use and Misuse of the
Bible in the Schoolroom. By Edward Maitland. Price Is. 6d.
The Speaker’s Commentary Reviewed. By T. L. Strange, late a Judge of
the High Court of Madras
Price 2s. 6d.
The Tactics and Defeat of the Christian Evidence Society. By Thomas
Scott. Price 6d.
Notes on Bishop Magee’s Pleadings for Christ. By a Barrister. Price 6di
How to Complete the Reformation. By Edward Maitland. With Portrait.
Price 6d.
Does Morality depend on Longevity ? By Edw. Vansittart Neale. Price 6d.
A Dialogue by way of Catechism,—Religious, Moral, and Philosophical.
By a Physician. Parts I. and It Price 6d each Part.
Sunday Lyrics by Gamaliel Brown.
On the Relations of Theism to Pantheism; and On the Galla JJeligion.
By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Christianity and Education in India. A Lecture delivered at St George’s Hall,
London, Nov. 12,1871. By A. Jyram Row, of Mysore. Price 6d.
An Examination of Some Recent Writings about Immortality. By
W. E. B. Price 6d.
The Impeachment of Christianity. By Francis E. Abbot, Editor of ‘ Index,’
Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A. With Letters from Miss Frances P. Cobbe and Professor
F. W. Newman, giving their Reasons for not calling themselves Christians.
Price 3d.
On Faith. By A. D. Graham and F. H. Price 3d.
Scepticism and Social Justice. By Thomas Horlock Bastard. Price 3d.
Rational Theology. A Lecture. By F. Reginald Statham. Price 3d.
A Critical Catechism. Criticised by a Doctor of Divinity, and Defended by
T. L. Strange. Price 6d.
The English Life of Jesus. By Thomas Scott. A New Edition. Price 4s.
Postage 4d. extra.
The Book of Common Prayer Examined in the Light of the Present Age.
By William Jevons. Price 6d.
The Prayer Book adapted to the Age. By William Jevons. Price 3d.
Spiritual Pantheism. By F. H. I. Price 6d.
The Living God. By the Rev. E. M. Geldart. Price 3d.
�List of Publications—continued.
The Mythos of the Ark. By J. W. Lake. Price 6d.
The New Doxology. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d.
Clerical Integrity. By T. L. Strange. Price 3d.
Thoughts on the Existence of Evil. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 3d.
Truths for the Times. By F. E. Abbot, Toledo, Ohio, U.S.A. Price 3d.
The Bennett Judgment. By T. L. Strange. Price 3d.
Religion Viewed as Devout Obedience to the Laws of the Universe. By
Matt. Macfie. Price 6d.
The Mythical Element in Christianity. By Ed. Vansittart Neale, M.A.
Price Is.
Origin of the Legends of Abraham, Isa^c, and Jacob Critically
Examined. By A. Bernstein. Price Is.
The Dean of Ripon on the Physical Resurrection of Jesus, in its Bearing
on the Truth of Christianity. By Thomas Scott. Price 6d.
Friends to the cause of “Free Inquiiy and Free Expression” are earnestly requested
to give aid in the wide dissemination of these pamphlets.
PRINTED EY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET, W.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Dean of Ripon on the physical resurrection of Jesus and its bearing on the truth of Christianity
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Scott, Thomas
M'Neile, Hugh [1795-1879]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 39, [4] p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Part of Morris Misc. Tracts 4. Publisher's series list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from KVK. Also bound in Conway Tracts 31.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4870
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (A defence of atheism: being a lecture delivered in Mercantile Hall, Boston, April 10, 1861), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jesus Christ
Resurrection
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/9a1cb940d123ad34f5393f5dedf5fcef.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=mgUE0HrDkYFaI5KvdEDvagxc5UilvIXB4nU9ZZwWzr-Eg2DgV5tFfSwngcYRIbFaRuEfz1DPKRgrMK3RYVtKiLZyN%7Eh3BY3WTFlndrFHpD38l8Oot2th2jW8THhMsx4menntGaDfR8SjmBsiRYUt6Y9VaB8h2akZRLEW0RRbmP8mz%7EI65E8F15j4q9LCz2-GfOrFg1QAEfaFyJ9e5H4Az4sNyT6O7ClI99MyHv0XgY1n3pLkb0vwrvfv2q-i2Pp1qAZcxg0xZjkPteL2ZIMe0yFrAGjKgY7u86gMomLffCENSw9Oe1EuIzIymHOxZjjGPqZFPtERysJy760YTzfEyA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
37d8c19ced2d2debf2c1ff1fd45f1e34
PDF Text
Text
6^35 i
■)
:
:
■
j'
.(
.
»
,W.'
„■
TRACTS FOR THE TlMES-No. 8.
STRAUSS’S LIFE OF JESUS,
EXAMINED BY
THEODORE PARKER,
MINISTER OF THE TWENTY-SECOND CONGREGATIONAL CHURCH,
BOSTON, MASS.
PART FIRST.
The work above-named is one of profound theological significance. It marks the age
we live in, and to judge from its character and the interest it has already excited, will
make an epoch in theological affairs. It is a book whose influence, for good and for evil,
will not soon pass away. Taken by itself, it is the most remarkable work that has ap
peared in,theology for the last hundred and fifty years, or since Richard Simon published
his Critical History of the Old Testament; viewed in reference to its present effect, it
may well be compared to Tindall’s celebrated work, “ Christianity as old as the Creation,”
to which, we are told, more than six score replies have been made. We do not propose
to give any answer to the work of Mr Strauss, or to draw a line between what we consider
false, and what is true; but only to give a description and brief analysis of the work itself,
that the good and evil to be expected therefrom may be made evident. But before we
address ourselves to this work, we must say a brief word respecting the comparative
position of Germany and England in regard to Theology.
On the fourth day of July, in the year of grace one thousand seven hundred and fifty
seven, died at Halle, in Germany, Sigismund Jacob Baumgarten; a man who was deemed
a great light in his time. Some thought that Theology died with him. A few, perhaps
more than a few, at one time doubted his soundness in the faith, for he studied philosophy,
the philosophy of Wolf, and there are always men, in pulpits and parlours, who think
philosophy is curious in unnecessary matters, meddling with things that are too high for
the human arm to reach. Such was the case in Baumgarten’s time in Halle of Saxony.
Such is it now, not in Halle of Saxony, but in a great many places nearer home. But
Dr Baumgarten outlived this suspicion, we are told, and avenged himself, in the most
natural way, by visiting with thunders all such as differed from himself; a secret satisfac
tion which some young men, we are told, hope one day to enjoy. Baumgarten may be
taken, perhaps, as representing the advanced post in German theology in the middle of
the last century. A few words from one of the greatest critical scholars Europe has
produced will serve to show what that post was a hundred years ago. “ He attempted,
by means of history and philosophy, to throw light upon theological subjects ; but wholly
neglecting philology and criticism, and unacquainted with the best sources of knowledge,
he was unable to free religion from its corruptions. Everything that the church taught
passed with him for infallible truth. He did not take pains to inquire whether it agreed
with Scripture or common sense, Deyoted to the church, he assumed its doctrines, and
?
�2
fortified its traditions with the show of demonstrations, as with insurmountable walls of
defence. His scholars were no less prompt and positive in their decisions than their
master. Every dogma of their teacher was received by them as it were a mathematical
certainty, and his polemics exhibited to them the Lutheran church in exclusive posses
sion of the truth, and resigned all other sects covered with shame and contempt to their
respective errors. Everything appeared to be so clearly exhibited and proved by him, that
there seemed to be nothing left for future scholars to investigate and explain ; but only
to repeat and enforce in an intelligible manner the truths already acquired. Baumgarten,
indeed, accounted it nothing less than high treason against his discipline for his scholars
to presume to think and examine for themselves; and acknowledged him only for his
genuine disciple who left his school confident that, with the weapons of his instructor in
his hands, he could resist the whole theological world, and overcome it without a violent
struggle.” Philosophy was considered as a pest, and its precincts forbidden to all pious
souls. Ecclesiastical history was in the service of a mystical Pietism; its real province
and genuine sources were unknown. Exegetical learning was thought unnecessary, and
even a foe to genuine piety ; the chimeras of Buxtorf, half Jewish, half Christian, ruled
with despotic sway. Langen’s method of salvation was esteemed an oracle in dogmatic
theology, and pietistic and fanatical notions prevailed in morals. If a man was not satis
fied with this, or showed a desire for more fundamental theological learning, it was said,
“ He has forsaken his first love, and wants to study his Saviour out of the world.” Such
was Germany a hundred years ago. The fate of Lawrence Schmid, the “Wertheim Trans
lator” of part of the Pentateuch, is a well knowm sign of the times. A young man was
accused of Socinianism and Arianism, because he doubted the genuineness of the cele
brated passage, 1 John v. 7, now abandoned by all respectable critics; he was reckoned
unsound because he openly, or in secret, studied Richard Simon, Grotius, Leclerc, and
Wetstein.
Let us now turn to England. Before this time the Deists had opened their voice;
Hobbs, Morgan, Collins, Chubb, Tindall, Bolingbroke, had said their say. The civil wars p
of England, in the century before, had awakened the soul of the nation. Great men had
risen up, and given a progress to the Protestant Reformation, such as it found in no other
country of the world perhaps, unless it were in Transylvania and Holland. There had
been a Taylor, Cudworth, Seeker, Tillotson, Hoadly, Hare, Lardner, Foster, Whitby,
Sykes, Butler, Benson, Watts—yes, a Newton and a Locke, helping to liberalise theology.
The works of Montaigne, Malebranche, Bayle, even of Spinoza, had readers in England,
as well as opponents. The English theologians stood far in advance of the Germans,
among whom few great names were to be reckoned after the Reformation. Take the
century that ended in the year of Baumgarten’s death, and you have the period of Eng
land’s greatest glory in science, literature, and theology. The works which give charac
ter to the nation were written then. Most of the English theology, which pays for the
reading, was written before the middle of the last century; while in Germany few books
had been written on that general theme since the sixteenth century, which are now re
printed or even read. Such was England a century ago.
What have the two countries done since? Compare Taylor’s Liberty of Prophesying,
the writings of Cudworth, Locke, Butler, and Tillotson, or Foster, with the writings of '
the men who occupy a similar relative position at this day—with the general tone of the
more liberal writers of England—and what is the result ? Need it be told ? Theology,
in the main body of English Theologians, has not been stationary. It has gone back.
The works of Priestley, and others like him, bear little fruit.
Now in Germany, since the death of Baumgarten, there has been a great advance.
Compare the works of Neander, Bretschneider, De Wette, and F. C. Bauer, with Baum
garten, and “the great theologians” of his time, and what a change! New land has
been won ; old errors driven away. It is not in vain that Michaelis, Semler, Eichhorn,
Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Schleiermacher, have lived. Men study theology as the
English once studied it—as if they were in earnest. New questions are raised;.old
doubts removed; some principles are fixed; and theology studied as a science, in the light
of reason. But another has said, “ In the English theology there is somewhat dead, and
immoveable, catholic, external, mechanical; while the industrial power of.England is
active, and goes ahead with giant strides, from invention to invention ; while the com
mercial and warlike spirit of the nation goes storming forth, with manly and. almost
frantic courage, into the remotest distance, embracing the globe with its gigantic arms,
and in the midst of its material concerns pursues without wearying the interests of
science, too haughty to disturb itself about the truth of religions foreign to its concerns—
theology remains, as it were, to represent the female element in the mind of the nation,
�3
sitting at home, domestic as a snail, in the old-fashioned narrow building she has inherited
from her fathers, which has been patched up a little, here and there, as necessity com
pelled. There she sits, anxiously fearing, in her old-womanly way, lest she shall be
driven out of doors by the spirit of enlightened Europe, which sports with heathen reli
gions. In English theology a peace has been established between the understanding and
Christianity, as between two deadly foes. Theology preserves unhurt the objective con
tents of the Christian religion; but in the dull understanding, it lies like a stone in the
stomach.” But let us now turn to the work of Mr Strauss.
It is not our aim to write a polemic against the author of the “ Life of Jesus,” but to
describe his book, or “define his position,” as the politicians are wont to say. The work
in question comprises, first, an introduction, relating to the formation of the “Mythical stand
point,” from which tire Evangelical history is to be contemplated; second, the main work
itself, which is divided into three books, relating respectively to the History of the Birth
and Childhood of Jesus; bis Public Life; his Sufferings, Death, and Resurrection; third,
a conclusion of the whole book, or the doctrinal significance of the life of Jesus. The
work forms two closely printed volumes, and comprises about sixteen hundred pages,
thus making a work nearly as large as Mr Hallam’s History of Literature. It is not
properly called a Life of Jesus; but a better, a more descriptive title would be, A Funda
mental Criticism on the Four Gospels. In regard to learning, acuteness, and sagacious
conjectures, the work resembles Niebuhr’s History of Rome. Like that, it is not a his
tory, but a criticism and collection of materials, out of which a conjectural history may
be constructed. Mr Strauss, however, is not so original as Niebuhr (who yet had numerous
predecessors, though they are rarely noticed), but is much more orderly and methodical.
The general manner of treating the subject, and arranging the chapters, sections, and
parts of the argument, intimates consummate dialectical skill; while the style is clear,
the expression direct, and the author’s openness in referring to his sources of information,
and stating his conclusions in all their simplicity, is candid and exemplary.
The introduction to the work is valuable to every student of the Scriptures, who has
sufficient sagacity to discern between the true and the false ; to any other it is dangerous,
as are all strong books to weak heads, very dangerous, from its “ specious appearances.”
It is quite indispensable to a comprehension of the main work. We will give a brief
abstract of some of its most important matters. If a form of religion rest on written
documents, sooner or later there comes a difference between the old document and the
modern discoveries and culture shown in works written to explain it. So long as the
difference is not total, attempts will be made to reconcile the two. A great part of reli
gious documents relate to sacred history, to events and instances of the Deity stepping
into the circle of human affairs. Subsequently, doubts arise as to the fact, and it is said,
“the Divinity could not have done as it is alleged,” or, “the deed could not be divine.”
Then attempts are made to show either that these deeds were never done, and, therefore,
the documentary record is not entitled to historical credibility, or that they were not done
ly God, and, therefore, to explain away the real contents of the book. In each of these
cases, the critic may go fearlessly to w’ork; look facts clearly in the face; acknowledges
the statements of the old record, with the inconsistency between them and the truths of
science; or, he may go to work under constraint; may blind himself to this inconsistency,
and seek merely to unfold the original meaning of the text. This took place in Greece,
where religion did not rest on religious documents, but had yet a sort of connection with
the mythological stories of Homer and Hesiod, and with others, which circulated from
mouth to mouth. The serious philosophers soon saw that these stories could not be true.
Hence arose Plato’s quarrel with Homer; hence Anaxagoras gave an allegorical explana
tion of Homer, and the Stoics naturalised Hesiod’s Theogony, supposing it related to the
operations of nature. Others, like Evhemerus, humanised and applied these stories to men,
who by great deeds had won divine honours.
Now’ with the Hebrews, their stability, and their adherence to the supernatural stand
point, would, on the one hand, prevent such views being taken of their religious records:;
and on the other, would render this treatment the more necessary. Accordingly, after
the exile, and still more after the time of the Maccabees, the Hebrew teachers found
means to remove what was offensive ; to fill up chasms, and introduce modern ideas into
their religious books. This was first done at Alexandria. Philo—following numerous
predecessors—maintained there was a common and a deeper sense in the Scriptures, and in
some cases the literal meaning was altogether set aside; especially when it comprised
anything excessively anthropomorphitic, or unworthy of God. Thus he gave up the histo
rical character, to save the credit of the narrative, but never followed the method of
Evhemerus. The Christians applied the same treatment to the Old Testament, and
�4
Origen found a literal, moral, and mystical sense in all parts of the Scriptures, and some
times applied the saying, “ the letter killeth, but the spirit maketh alive,” to the former.
Some passages, he said, had no literal sense; in others, a literal lie lay at the bottom of a
mystical truth. Many deeds, he says, are mentioned in Scripture which were never per
formed ; fiction is woven up with fact to lead us to virtue. He rejected the literal sense
of those passages which humanise the Deity. But Origen went further, and applied these
same principles to the New Testament, where he found much that was distasteful to his
philosophical palate. Here also he finds fiction mingled with fact, and compares the
Homeric stories of the Trojan war, in respect to their credibility, with the Christian nar
ratives. In both Homer and the Gospels, he would consider what portions can be be
lieved ; what considered as figurative; what rejected as incredible, and the result of
human frailty. He, therefore, does not demand a blind faith in the Gospels, but would
have all Christians understand, that good sense and diligent examination are necessary in
this study, to ascertain the meaning of a particular passage. But this heretical father
was too cautious to extend these remarks, and apply them extensively to particular pas
sages. The Scriptures fell into the hands of men who acknowledged something divine in
them; but denied that God had made therein particular manifestations of himself. This
was done by Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian, who assented to much that is related of Moses
and Jesus; while they found “ lying legends” in other parts of the Bible.
Among the Greeks and Hebrews, whose religious literature was contemporary with the
growth of the nation, the prevalence of the allegorical interpretation of the sacred books
proved that the old forms of religion had died out, for the modern culture had outgrown the
faith of the fathers of the nation. But in Christianity, the allegorical explanation adopted
by Origen, and the peculiar opposition of Celsus taking place so near the birth of Chris
tianity, proved that the world had not yet properly lived in the new form of religion.
But, from the age after this time, when the rude Germanic nations—too rude to find any
difficulty in admitting the most objectionable parts of the Old and New Testament—were
conquering the Roman Empire, and becoming Christians at the same time, all proofs have
disappeared which would indicate the prevalence of a manner of interpreting the Scrip
tures that arose from a radical discrepancy between the culture of mankind and the state
ments in these records. The Reformation made the first breach upon the solid walls of ec
clesiastical faith in the letter of the Bible. This was the first sign, that in Christianity,
as formerly in Judaism and Heathenism, there was a culture sufficiently powerful to re-act
upon the prevalent form of religion.
So far as the Reformation was directed against the Romish Church, it soon accomplished
its sublime mission. But in relation to the Scriptures, it took the direction of Deism.
Toland and Bolingbroke called the Bible a collection of fabulous books. Others robbed
the Scriptural heroes of all divine light. The law of Moses was considered a superstition,
the apostles were called selfish, the character of Jesus was assailed, and his resurrection
denied by a “ moral philosopher.” Here belong Chubb, Woolston, Morgan, and the Wolfenbuttel Fragmentis. These scholars were ably opposed by a host of apologetical writers
in England and Germany, who defended the supernatural character of the Bible. But in
Germany there arose a different class of men, who designed to strip the Bible of its super
natural character and direct divinity; but to leave its human character unharmed. They
would not call the alleged miracles, miracles, nor consider them as juggling. Thus Eich
horn opposed the Deists—who ascribed bad motives to the writers of Scripture—but
denied that there was anything supernatural in the stories of the Old Testament. He
saw that he must deny this of the Bible, or admit it, likewise, of all ancient religious do
cuments; for they all claimed it. We are not to be astonished, he says, at finding mira
cles in these writings, for they were produced in the infancy of the world ; we must interpret them in the same spirit that composed them. Thus he can explain the histoiy of
Noah, Abraham, and Moses, by natural events.
.
Others treated the New Testament in the same manner. But the first Christian
-Evhemerus was Dr Paulus. He makes a distinction between the fact related and the judg
ment or opinion respecting the fact; for example, between the fact and the writers opinion
respecting its cause or purpose. The two, he supposes, are confounded in the New Testa
ment ; for its writers, like others in that age, took a supernatural view', and referred
human actions to the direct agency of God. The office of an interpreter is to separate
the fact from the opinion about the fact. Paulus, accordingly, believes the Gospels but
denies the supernatural casualty of the events related. Jesus is not the Son of God, in
the ecclesiastical sense, but a good man; he works no miracles, but does kind deeds,
sometimes by cliirurgical skill, and sometimes by good luck. Both Paulus and Eich
horn, in order to maintain the truth of the narrative, must refer it to a date as early as
�possible; thus the former admits that Moses wrote the Pentateuch on the march through
the wilderness, and the latter believes the genuineness of the Gospels. Both of these
sacrifice the literal history for the sake of the great truths contained in the ^ok.
Kant took a different position. He did not concern himself with the history, but only
with the idea the history unfolded; this idea he considered not »s theoretical and practi
cal but only the latter. He did not refer it to the divine mind, but to that of the writer,
or his interpreter. Christian writers, he says, have so long interpreted these books, that
they seem to harmonise with universal moral laws. But the Greeks and Romans did
the same, and made Polytheism only a symbol of the various attributes
‘he One God
thus giving a mystical sense to the basest actions of the gods, and the wildest dreams of
the poets. In the same way the Christian writings must be explained, so as to make
them harmonise with the universal laws of a pure moral religion. This, even if it
does violence to the text, must be preferred to the literal interpretation, which, in many
instances, would afford no support to morality, and would sometimes counteract the
moral sense. Thus he makes David’s denunciation of his foes signify the desire to over
come obstacles; but thinks it is not necessary these ideas should have been present to the
mind of the writer of the books.
Here, Mr Strauss continues, was, on the one hand, an unhistoncal, and on the other an
unphilosophical method of treating the Bible. The progressive study of mythology shed
light upon this subject. Eichhorn had made the reasonable demand, that the Bible should
be treated like other ancient books ; but Paulus, attempting to treat others as he treated
the Bible, could not naturalise the Greek legends and myths. Such scholars as Schelling
and Gabler began to find myths in the Bible, and apply to them the maxim of Heyne,
“ a mytliis omnis priscorum hominum cum historia, turn philosophia procedit.
Bauer
ventured to write a Hebrew mythology of the Old and New Testament. . A myth was
defined to be a narration, proceeding from an age when there was no written authentic
history, but when facts were related and preserved by oral tradition. It is a myth, it it
contains an account of things—related in an historical way—which absolutely could not be
the objects of experience, such as events that took place in the supersensual world, or
which could not relatively be objects of experience, such, for example, as from the
nature of the case no man could witness. Or, finally, it is a myth, if the narrative is
elaborated into the wonderful, and is related in symbolic language.
Now, the naturalistic method of interpreting the Bible could only be resorted to on the
supposition of its historical accuracy, and that it was written contemporary with ‘i‘ie
events it relates. Accordingly, men who denied this carried out the mythical theory.
The Pentateuch, says Vater, can be understood only on the supposition it was not written
by eye-witnesses. De Wette declared still more strongly against the naturalistic, and m
favour of the mythical hypothesis. To test the credibility of an account, he says, we
must examine the writer’s tendency. He may write history, and yet have a poetic ten
dency, and such is the case with the writers of the Old Testament. Fact and fiction are
blended together therein, and we cannot separate them, because we have no criterion, or
touchstone, by which to examine them. The only source of our knowledge of events is
the narrative relating the historical facts. We cannot go beyond this. In regard to the
Old Testament, we must admit or reject these narratives; in the latter case, we relinquish
all claim to any knowledge of the affairs related, for we have no other evidence respecting
them. We have no right to impose a natural explanation on what is related as a miracle.
It is entirely arbitrary to say thejfczc/ is genuine history, and the drapery alone is poetical;
for example, we have no right to say, Abraham thought he would make a covenant with
God, and that this fact lies at the bottom of the poetic narrative. Nor do we know what
Abraham thought. If we follow the narrative, we must take the fact as it is ; if we reject
it, we have no knowledge of the fact itself. It is not reasonable that Abraham should
have such thoughts of his descendants possessing Palestine centuries afterwards, but quite
natural that they should write this poetic fiction to glorify their ancestor..
Thus the naturalistic explanation destroys itself, and the mythical takes its place. Even
Eichhorn confessed the former could not be applied to the New lestament; and. Gabler,
long ago, maintained that there are in the New Testament not only erroneous judgments
upon facts, which an eye-witness might make, but also false facts and improbable results
mentioned, which an eye-witness could not relate, but which were gradually formed by
tradition, and are, therefore, to be considered myths. The circumstance of writings and
books being well known at the time of Christ does not preclude the mythical view ; for
the facts must have been preserved orally long before they were written down. Besides,
says Bauer, we have not in the New Testament a whole series of myths, but only single
mythical stories. Anecdotes are told of a great naan, which assume a more extraordinary
�6
character the farther they spread. In a miracle-loving age, the obscure youth of Jesus
would, after his name became illustrious, be embellished with miraculous stories of celes
tial beings visiting his parents, predicting his birth and character. Where the records or
authentic tradition failed, men gave loose to fancy, to historical conjectures and reason
ings in the style of the Jewish Christians, and thus created the philosophic myths of
primitive Christian history. But men did not set down with fancy aforethought, saying,
“Go to, now, let us make myths;” but they were gradually formed; a little was added
here, and a little there. They would relate chiefly to the obscurest part of Christ’s his
tory. In obedience to this principle, Eichhorn, seeing that only a slender thread of
apostolical tradition runs through the three first Gospels, rejects several stories from the
life of Jesus, which offended his critical taste; for example, the Gospel of the Infancy, the
temptation, some of his miracles, the resurrection of the saints at his death.
Now, Mr Strauss objects to his predecessors, that, for the most part, their idea of a myth
is not just and definite; for in the case of a historical myth they permit the interpreter
to separate a natural, historical fact from the miraculous embellishments, which they
refer to tradition; not, as the naturalist had done, to the original author. Thus the natu
ralist and the supernaturalist could admit historical but not philosophical myths, for
then the entire historical basis seemed to fall away. Again, these views were not applied
extensively—as far as they would go. Eichhorn admitted there was a myth on the
threshold of the Old Testament. When the mythical hypothesis reached the New
Testament, it was not permitted to go beyond the very entrance. It was admitted there
could be no certain accounts of the early life of Jesus, and, therefore, that many false
stories, suited to the taste of the times and the oracles of the Old Testament, have taken
the place which there was no history to fill. But this does notin the slightest degree impair
the credibility of the subsequent narrative. The Evangelists give an account of the last
three years of his life ; and here they were eye-witnesses, or took the word of eye-wit
nesses. Then objections were brought against the end of the history, and the Ascension
was considered spurious or mythical. Thus critical doubts began to nibble at both ends
of the narrative, while the middle remained untouched ; or, as some one has said,
“ Theologians entered the domain of evangelical history through the gorgeous portals of
the myth, and passed out at a similar gate; but in all that lay between these limits,
they were content to take the crooked and toilsome paths of naturalistic explanation.”
•Mr Strauss next inquires, whether it is possible there should be myths in the New Tes
tament? and, judging from outward arguments, he thinks it possible. Most Christians, he
says, believe that is false which the heathen relate of their gods, and the Mahometans of
their prophet, while the Scriptures relate only what is true respecting the acts of God,
Christ, and the holy men. But this is a prejudice founded on the assumption that Christiany differs from heathen religions in the fact that it alone is an historical, while they
are mythical religions. But this is the result of a partial and confined view ; for each of
the other religions brings this charge against its rivals; and all derive their own origin
from the direct agency of God. It is supposed that the Gospels were written by eye
witnesses, who were not deceived themselves, and were not deceivers, and, therefore, no room
is left for the formation or insertion of myths. But it is only a prejudice that the Gospels
were written by eye-witnesses. The names of Matthew and John, for example, prefixed
to these writings prove nothing; for the Pentateuch bears the name of Moses, though it
must have been written long after him; some of the Psalms bear the name of David
though they were written during the exile, and the book of Daniel ascribes itself to that
prophet, though it was not written before the times of Antiochus Epiphanes. He finds
little reason for believing the genuineness or the authenticity of the Gospels. Indeed he
regards them all as spurious productions of well-meaning men, who collected the traditions
that were current in the part of the world where they respectively lived. This is the
weakest part of his book, important as the question is; yet weak as it is, his chief argu
ment rests upon it. The proofs of the spuriousness of these books are quite too feeble
and uncertain for his purpose, and accordingly we are pleased to see, from the preface
and many passages of the third edition, that his doubts upon the genuineness of John’s
Gospel have become doubtful, even to himself, after a farther study of it, with the aid of
the recent works of Neander and De Wette.
Again, judging from the character of the books themselves, myths, according to Strauss,
might be expected in the New Testament. It is sometimes said, the mythical stories of
the Bible differ from the Greek myths, in their superior moral character; but the alleged
■immorality of the Greek myths arises from mistaking their sense; and some of the myths
in the Old Testament are immoral; and if they could be formed, much easier could
moral myths be made and accepted. It is sometimes said, in opposition to the mythical
�hypothesis, that all these stories in the Bible appear natural, if you admit the direct
agency of God. But the same remark applies equally to the Greek and Indian myths.
Still farther, it is said, the heathen myths represent God as a changing being, and thus
contain the natural history of God, and the birth, infancy, youth, and manhood of Apollo
or Jupiter, for example; while those of the Bible represent Jehovah as eternally the
same. But Jesus, the Son of God, the Divine Logos incarnated, is the subject of history.
Others say, there can be no myths, because the time of Jesus was an historical and not a
mythical age; but all parts of the world were not filled with the historical spirit, and
fictions might easily grow up among the people, who had no design to deceive, and thus
myths be formed. This is the more probable, for in ancient times, among the Hebrews,
and in particular in the religious circles of that people, history and fiction, like poetry
and prose, were never carefully separated, and the most respectable writers, among the
Jews and early Christians, wrote works, and ascribed them to distinguished men of an
earlier
His definition and criteria of a myth are as follows:—A myth has two sides; first, it
is not a history; and second, it is a fiction, which has been produced by the state of mind
of a certain community.
I. It is not an historical statement: (1) if it contradict the well-known laws of casualty
(and here belong the direct actions and supernatural appearances of God and the angels,
miracles, prophecies, and voices from Heaven, violations of the order of succession, and
well-known psychological laws); and (2) when the writers or witnesses contradict each
other, in respect to time (for example, of the purification of the temple), place (the
residence of Joseph and Mary), number (the Gadarenes and angels at the grave), or in
respect to names and other circumstances.
II. A narrative is shown to be legendary or fictitious: (1) if it is poetical in form, and
the discourses of the characters are longer and more inspired than we need expect (for ex
ample, the discourses of Jesus); and (2) if the substance of the narrative agrees remarkably
with the preconceived opinions of the community where it originated, it is .more or less
probable the narrative grew out of the opinion. He adds several qualifications and mo
difications of these tests.
Having thus drawn lines of circumvallation and contravallation about the Gospels, Mr
Strauss thus opens the attack upon the outworks: The narrative in Luke relating to John
the Baptist, he says, is not authentic; it is not probable the angelic state is constituted
as it is here supposed. This idea was borrowed by the later Jews from the Zend religion;
and the name of the angel Gabriel, and his office to stand before God, are Babylonian.
The angel’s discourse and conduct are objectionable; he commands that the child shall
be trained up as a Nazarite, and smites Zacharias with dumbness, which is not consistent
with “ theocratic decorum.” Admitting the existence of angels, they could not reveal
themselves to men, since they belong to different spheres. The naturalists and super
naturalists fail to render this story credible, and we are, therefore, forced to doubt its
literal accuracy. Some writers suppose there are historical facts at the bottom of this
tale; for example, the sterility of Elizabeth, the sudden dumbness of Zacharias, and his
subsequent restoration. But there is no better reason for admitting these facts than for
admitting the whole story. It must be regarded as a myth, and is evidently wrought
out in imitation of others in the Old Testament. It resembles the story of Sarah, in the
age of the parties; Elizabeth is a daughter of Aaron, whose wife bore this same name.
The appearance of the angel, who fortels the birth of John, his character and destiny, is
evidently an imitation of the prophecy respecting Samson, and there is a very strong
resemblance between the language of Luke in this part of the story and that of the Septuagint in the account of Samson’s birth. The conclusion of the story (Luke i. 80)
resembles the end of the story of Ishmael (Gen. xxi. 20). The name of John (God’s gift)
which was not a family name, renders the narrative still more suspicious. Thus the
whole is a myth. We think Mr Strauss, for the sake of consistency, ought to deny that
John the Baptist was an historical person, and doubtless he would have done so, were it
not for an unfortunate passage in Josephus, which mentions that prophet. A rigorous
application of his tests would deprive John of historical existence. But Josephus saves
him.
He next examines the genealogies of Jesus.
Matthew enumerates three series, each of fourteen generations, or forty-two persons in
the whole, between Abraham and Jesus, and gives the names of the individuals; but the
number actually given does not agree with his enumeration, and no hypothesis relieves
us of the difficulty. If we compare this list with the Old Testament, it is still more
objectionable, for it omits several well-known names, and contains some mistakes. Luke’s
�genealogy differs still more widely from the Old Testament; from Nathan, the Son of
David, downward, he mentions only two persons who occur in the Old Testament, namely,
Salathiel and Zorobabel, and even here it contradicts the narratives in 1 Chronicles iii.
17, 19, 20. If we compare these two genealogies together, there is a striking difference
between them. Luke reckons forty-one generations from David to Joseph, the father of
Jesus, where Matthew makes but twenty-six, and with the two exceptions above mentioned,
the names are all different in the two narrations. According to Luke, the father of Joseph
is Heli, a descendant of Nathan, son of David; according to Matthew, Joseph’s father is
Jacob, a descendant of Solomon. Various attempts have been made to reconcile these
conflicting genealogies, but they all rest on arbitrary suppositions. It is sometimes said
one contains the genealogy of Joseph, the other of Mary • but this also is an arbitrary
supposition, at variance with the text, and is not supported by any passage in the Bible..
We must, then, conclude these genealogies are arbitrary compositions, which do not
prove the Davidie descent of Jesus, who was called son of David, because he was consi
dered as the Messiah. It is easily conceivable that a Galilean, whose descent was un
known, after he had acquired the title of Messiah, should be represented by tradition as a
son of David. On the strength of these traditions genealogies were composed, which, for
want of authentic documents, were as various and conflicting as these two of Luke and
Matthew.
He then treats of the miraculous birth of Jesus.
Here he makes use of two apocryphal Gospels, quoted by several of the early fathers.
He shows the striking difference between the accounts of Matthew and Luke, concerning
the birth of Jesus. But since the same view has been taken amongst us by Mr Norton,
and this remarkable discrepancy has been pointed out by him in a work well known and
justly valued, it is unnecessary to enter farther into the subject. Mr Norton reject’s
Matthew’s account as spurious and unauthentic; while Mr Strauss, with more perfect
logical consistency, rejects likewise Luke’s narrative, on the ground that Gabriel talks
like a Jew ; that the supernatural birth is impossible; that if a human birth implies the
sinfulness of the child, then a celestial mother is needed also, that the child may be free
from sin. Again, there are exegetical difficulties, for Mark and John omit this part of
the history, and the latter had the best possible means of information, and it is always
supposed in the New Testament that Jesus was Joseph’s son. Beside, if Jesus were the
son of God, how could he be the son of David, and why are the two genealogies given to
prove that descent, one of which is confessed, on all hands, to be the genealogy of Joseph,
who by the supernatural hypothesis was nowise related to Jesus ? In this case the gene
alogies would prove nothing. It is not possible they proceeded from the same hand as
the story of the supernatural birth, and Mr Strauss conjectures they are the work of the
Ebionites, who denied that article of faith. The attempts of the rationalists and the super
naturalists are alike insufficient, he thinks, to explain away the difficulties of this narra
tive ; but if we regard it as a myth, the difficulty vanishes, and its origin is easily explained.
The story itself, in Matthew, refers to Isaiah (vii. 14), and that prophecy seems to have
been the groundwork of this myth. In the old world, it was erroneously supposed, or
pretended, that great men were the descendants of the gods; for example, Hercules, the
Dioscuri, Romulus, Pythagoras, and Plato, of whose remarkable birth Jerome speaks. This
myth, therefore, grew naturally out of the common Jewish notions at the time, and was
at last written down.
He next examines the account of the census, and the early life of Jesus.
Luke informs us that Augustus Caesar issued a decree “ that all the world should be
taxed, or numbered ; but no other writer mentions a general census in the time of Augus
tus, though a census was made in some provinces. If we limit the term “ all the world ”
to Judea, still it is improbable such a census was made at that time, for the Romans did
not make a census of conquered countries until they were reduced to the form of a pro
vince, and Judea did not become a Roman province until after the disgrace and banishment
of Arclielaus, which event took place after he had reigned ten years as an allied sovereign.
Luke says this census was made when Quirinus was governor of Syria. Now it was not
Quirinus, but Sentius Saturninus, and after him, Quint. Varus, who were proconsuls of Syria
in the latter years of Herod I., and it was some years after his death that Quirinus became
proconsul of Syria, and actually made a census, as Josephus relates. Luke also refers to this
latter census (Acts v. 37), and speaks of Judas the Galilean, who rebelled on this occasion, as
Josephus informs us. Now it cannot be true, that Jesus was born at so late a period .as
the time of this census, under Quirinus, for—not to mention the chronological difficulties
this hypothesis would create in the latter years of Jesus—this census could not have
extended to Galilee, the residence of Joseph and Mary, for that state was governed by
�9
Herod Antipas, in the capacity of Allied Prince, and accordingly was not a province;
therefore Joseph would not be summoned to Judea when the census of that province was
taken. Still further, it is not probable the Bomans would assemble the citizens
to°ether by families in the birth-place of the founder of the family,> enrol them.
*One evangelist makes Joseph live at Bethlehem, the other at Nazareth. Now the
design of the author, in placing the birth of Jesus at Bethlehem, is obvious. He wished
the prophecy in Micah (v. 2,) to be fulfilled in Jesus, for the Jews applied it to the
Messiah. The author, setting out from the opinion that Joseph and Mary, dwelt at
Nazareth, sought for some natural errand to bring them to Bethlehem. He found a suit
able occasion in the well-known census ot Quirinus: but not understanding accurately
the circumstances of the time and place, he has brought hopeless confusion into the nar
rative, if it is taken for genuine history. We have, therefore, no reason, concludes Mr
Strauss, for believing Jesus was born at Bethlehem, for the story is a myth.
Other circumstances in this narrative present difficulties. What purpose, asks Mr
Strauss, is served by the angels, who appear at the birth of Jesus? It could not be to
publish the fact; nor to reward the believing shepherds, who, like Simeon, were waiting
for the consolation; nor yet to glorify the unconscious infant. They seem sent to the
shepherds, because they were supposed to be more simple and religious than the. artificial
Pharisees. Similar objections may be made to the story of the magi, who, it is pre
supposed, knew beforehand, as astrologers, that a king of the Jews was to be.born. A
miraculous star guides them ; but a star does not change its position relatively to earthly
places, and a meteor does not appear so long as this guide seems to have done. The con
duct of Herod is not consistent with his shrewdness, for he sends no officer with the magi
to seize the new-born Messiah. The story of the massacre of the innocents at Bethlehem
is not mentioned by any ancient author, except Macrobius, a writer of the fourth cen
tury, and he confounds it with Herod’s murder of his son Antipater. The Rabbins, who
never spare this tyrant, do not mention it. True, it was but a drop in Herod’s sea of
guilt, but it is so peculiarly horrible and revolting, that they would not pass over it.
In this short passage there are four miraculous dreams and a miraculous star, not to men
tion the misinterpretation of the Old Testament. (Matt. ii. 23.)
But the whole story is mythical, and is derived from ideas and opinions commonly held
at the time. The ancients believed a heavenly body sometimes appeared on great occa
sions ; for example, a comet, at the birth of Mithridates, and at the death of Julius Caesar.
The Rabbins assert, a star appeared at the birth of Abraham. It was their opinion that
a star would appear in the east, and remain visible for a long time, at the period of the
Messiah’s birth. Balaam also had predicted that a star should come out of Jacob. In
ancient times, it was supposed stars guided men; for example, JEneas, Thrasybulus, and
Timoleon : and the Jews fancied that a star conducted Abraham to Mount Moriah. Isaiah
had foretold, that in the days of the Messiah men should come from distant lands to
worship, bringing gold and incense. Again, many great characters of antiquity had
escaped from imminent peril—for example, Cyrus, Romulus, Augustus, and Moses—in
early life. Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, had saved their lives at a later age, by flight.
AU these ideas and reminiscences, therefore, appear in the two narratives, which are dif
ferent variations of the same theme, though they.have no direct influence, one upon the other.
Matthew passes in silence over the entire period, from the return from Egypt to the
baptism of Jesus, and Luke mentions but a single circumstance of his early life, namely,
his conversation, when twelve years old, with the doctors. But this event cannot be
historical; for it is not probable he would, at that age, be admitted to a seat in the council
of the Rabbis. His reply to his parents would not have been misunderstood, if the pre
vious events had taken place as they are related. The whole story, Mr Strauss contends,
is a myth, conceived to suit the opinion, that great men are remarkable in their child
hood. Thus, in the Old Testament, Samuel is consecrated in his childhood; the later
traditions, which Philo and Josephus follow, ascribe wonderful things to Moses at an
early age, though the Bible knows nothing of them. Tradition says, that Samuel pro
phesied from his twelfth year, and that Solomon and Daniel uttered wise oracles at the
same age; 1 Kings, iii. 23, seq.; Susannah, vs. 45, seq.
The next chapter treats of the public ministry of Jesus. We pass over the chronological
difficulties relating to the ministry of John the Baptist, which have been carefully collected
by Mr Strauss, and come to his connection with Jesus. The baptism of John seems
based chiefly on some figurative expressions of the Old Testament, according to which
God would wash away the sins of his unregenerate people, before the Messiah came.
These passages could easily be combined so as to make it appear that baptism, as the
symbol of repentance, must precede the Messiah’s coming.
�10
Luke informs us that John was a kinsman of Jesus, and that their respective mothers
were acquainted with the sublime destiny of their children, even before the latter were
born. Matthew knows nothing of this, but ascribes to John, at the baptism of Jesus,
expressions which imply a previous acquaintance with him; for otherwise he would not
refuse to baptize Jesus, on the ground of his own unworthiness to baptize a being so far
above him. These two Gospels, then, agree in presupposing the acquaintance of John
and Jesus. But the fourth Gospel makes John distinctly deny the fact (i. 31—33.) The
appearance of the sign first assures him of the appearance of Jesus.
All the Gospels agree that John calls himself a forerunner of the Messiah, and that he
was convinced Jesus was that Messiah. But Matthew and Luke relate, that after his
imprisonment John sent two of his disciples to James, to ascertain the fact. Now if he
was convinced by the sign at the baptism, he ought still more to have been convinced by
the miracles of Jesus, that he was the Messiah. He could not have sent his disciples to
Jesus, in order to strengthen tAew- faith, for he did not know Jesus would work wonders
in their presence, nor would he compromise his own assertion, that Jesus was the Messiah;
and yet if he himself believed it, he would not urge his superior to declare himself imme
diately, but would leave him to decide for himself.
The fourth Gospel contains the most definite expressions respecting the Messiahship of
Jesus, and puts them in John’s mouth. But did the Baptist consider him an expiatory
sufferer? Did he ascribe to him an antemundane, celestial existence, as the Evangelist
has done? We find no proofs of it, except in this fourth Gospel. Now it is not probable
the Baptist had this conception of the office and nature of Jesus; nor is it probable that
he made the reply to his disciples which this Evangelist ascribes to him (iii. 27—36,)
where he confesses that he (John) is From beneath, but Jesus, From above, the one sent
by God, the son of God, speaking God’s words, and born of God. He must increase, and
I decrease. It is probable that the Evangelist put these words into John’s mouth, but
not that the Baptist ever uttered them; for if he had so deep an insight into the nature
of the kingdom of God, and the character and office of the Messiah, and believed Jesus to
be that Messiah, the latter would never have said that men so rude in their conceptions^
as the humblest of his disciples, were superior to John the Baptist; for Peter, the very
greatest of these disciples, never attained the lofty conception that Jesus was the son of
God, the “ Lamb, who taketh away the sin of the world.” Besides, the character of John
renders it incredible he would place himself at the feet of Jesus, the very opposite of him
self in all respects. This man of the desert, rough and austere, could not become a
pattern of the profoundest Christian resignation. A man on a humbler stand-point (like
that of John) cannot comprehend the man on a superior stand-point (like that of Jesus).
If this, which is related of John, were true, “ It would be the only instance on record of
a man belonging to the history of the whole world, voluntarily, and in such good humour,
giving up the reins of the affairs lie had so long directed, to a man who succeeded him,
only to cast him into the shade, and render his mission unnecessary.” The fourth Gospel,
then, would make the Baptist unlike the Baptist of the Synoptics and Josephus. The
statement in John i. 29—35, is derived in part from fancy, and partly from an embellish
ment of the narrative in the Synoptics.
.
.
Now the origin of the narratives relating to the Baptist, Mr Strauss contends, is very
easily explained. Paul related the historical fact, that John spoke in the name of one to
come, and added, Jesus was that one. Afterwards, men spoke as if John had a personal
acquaintance with Jesus. This view, though not supported by facts, pleased the early
Christians, who were glad to have the Baptist’s authority on their side. But there seems
no reason for believing there ever was such a recognition of Jesus on the part of John ;
nor is it probable that, while in prison on the charge of sedition (as Josephus says), he
would be permitted to hold free intercourse with his disciples. The. historical facts are,
perhaps, the following ; Jesus was baptized by John; perhaps continued for some time
one of his followers; was entrusted by John with the idea of the approaching Messiah.
After John was cast into prison, he continued to preach the doctrines of his master in a
modified form, and afterwards, when he rose far above John, never ceased, to feel and
express a deep reverence for him. Now we can trace the gradual formation of these
stories. John spoke indefinitely of the coming Messiah; tradition added, that he pro
claimed Jesus as that Messiah. It was thought the rumour of the works of Jesus might
have led him to this conclusion, and, therefore, Matthew’s story of the mission of two
disciples from the prison was formed. But since Jesus had been a disciple of John, it was
necessary the relation should be changed, and this purpose is served by Luke s stories of
events before his birth, which prove Jesus is the superior. But these accounts were not
sufficiently definite, and, therefore, the fourth Gospel leaves no doubt in John s mind that
�Jesus was the Messiah, but makes him give the strongest assurance of this, the first time
he sees him, and ascribes to him the most distinct expressions touching his eternal nature,
divinity, and character, as a suffering and atoning Messiah. Now the accounts of John’s
imprisonment and execution are easily reconciled with one another, and with Josephus ;
and hence we see that his life, as pourtrayed in the Gospels, is surrounded by mythical
shadows only on the side turned towards Jesus, while on the other the historical features
are clearly seen.
The miraculous events at the baptism of Jesus, Mr Strauss maintains, also present diffi
culties. The Synoptics mention both the dove and the voice; the fourth Gospel says
nothing of the voice, and does not say—though, perhaps, it implies —that the spirit
descended on him at the baptism. The lost gospels of Justin and the Ebionites connected
with this a celestial light, or fire burning in the Jordan. According to the fourth Gospel,
John was the only witness of the spirit descending upon Jesus like a dove; but Luke
would make it appear there were many spectators. Taking all the accounts, there must
have been some objective phenomena visible and audible. But here the cultivated man
finds difficulties and objections. Must the heavens open for the divine spirit to pass
through ? Is it consistent with just notions of the infinite spirit, to suppose it must
move like a finite being from place to place, and can incorporate itself in the form of a
dove ? Does God speak with a human voice ? The various theories, naturalistic and
supernaturalistic, fail of removing these difficulties. It cannot have been an aggregation
of natural events, nor a subjective vision of John, Jesus, or the multitude.
In some of the old gospels now lost, the words, “ Thou art my beloved son,” &c., were fol
lowed by these, “ This day have I begotten thee.” Clement of Alexandria and Augustine
seem to have found them in their copies, and some manuscripts of Luke still contain the
words. These words (from Psalm ii. 7) were supposed by Jewish and Christian inter
preters to relate to the Messiah, in their original application. Now to make them more
effective, and their application to Jesus as the Messiah the more certain, this, story
naturally grgw up, that a celestial voice applied them to Jesus. It was perfectly in the
spirit of Judaism, and primitive Christianity, to believe such voices were addressed to
men. Some of the Rabbis, it is said, received them not rarely. Still farther, Joel and
Isaiah had predicted the outpouring of the divine spirit in the days of the Messiah, This
spirit he also was to receive. If Jesus were the Messiah, he must receive this spirit; and
the occasion of his baptism afforded a very favourable opportunity. But how should it be
known that it came upon him ? It must descend in a visible form. The dove is a sacred
bird in Syria, and, perhaps, in Judea. The Jews supposed the spirit of God “ moved on
the face of the deep ” in this form. The dove, therefore, was a proper symbol and
representative of the divine spirit. These features were all successively united in a
mythus, which gradually grew up. There is, then, no reason for doubting that Jesus was
baptized by John; but the other circumstances are mythical, and have been added at a
later date. Here Mr Strauss is false to his principles, and separates the fact from the
drapery which surrounds the fact.
But the whole story of the descent of the spirit on Jesus, continues the author, seems
at variance with the previous account of his conception by that spirit. If the divine
spirit was the proper parent of Jesus, why should that spirit descend and abide upon him ?
It could not thereby produce a more intimate union between them. We must suppose
this story originated in a community which did not believe the supernatural conception
of Jesus ; and in fact we find that Christians, who did not admit the supernatural con
ception, believed the divine spirit was first imparted to Jesus at his baptism, and the
Orthodox fathers persecuted the old Ebionites for nothing more rigorously than for main
taining that the holy spirit, or the celestial spirit, first united himself with the man Jesus
at his baptism. According to Justin, it was the Jewish notion, that a higher power
would be first imparted to the Messiah, when he was anointed by Elias. This seems to
have been the primitive belief; but afterwards, when reverence for Jesus rose higher, a
myth grew up to prove that his Messiahship, and divine son-ship, did not commence with
his baptism, but with his conception; and then the words, “ This day have I begotten thee”
were left out, because they could not be reconciled with the Orthodox view.
The story of the Temptation also, Mr Strauss contends, has its difficulties. John does
not mention it, but makes Jesus appear in Galilee three days after his baptism, while the
Synoptics say he went immediately after this event into the wilderness, and fasted forty
days. The Synoptics also differ slightly among themselves. There are other difficulties.
Why did the Divine Spirit subject Jesus to this temptation by a visible Satan ? Not to
ascertain what manner of spirit he was of; nor to try him, for his subsequent trials were
sufficient. Again, a man could not abstain from food for forty days. Therefore some say,
�12
this is only a round number, and the fasting was not total abstinence from food ; but this
theory does not agree with the text. Still further, wherein consists the utility of this
fast ? But the personal devil is the chief stone of stumbling. His visible appearance has
its difficulties. How could the devil hope to seduce Jesus, knowing his superior nature?
and if ignorant of this, he would not have taken the pains to appear visibly before him.
The second temptation could offer no attraction to Jesus, and therefore is not consistent
with the alleged character of the devil. How could he transfer Jesus from place to place?
Their appearance on the pinnacle of the temple would create a sensation. Where is the
mountain whence he could show Jesus all the kingdoms of the world ? To say the world
is Palestine, with its four provinces, is no less absurd than to maintain with Fritzche,
that the devil showed Christ all the countries on the map of the world. Attempts have
been made to explain this story as an account of what passed in the mind of Jesus, either
in an ecstatic vision, occasioned directly by God, or the devil, or by his own natural
thoughts, arising in a dreamy state, when he spontaneously transformed the thoughts
into persons speaking and acting. But why should the Deity, or how could the devil
effect this ? To suppose it was the result of his own natural thoughts, implies that Jewish
notions of the Messiah had a strong influence on him even after his baptism. The merely
natural view is absurd. Some call it a parable, designed to show that no miracle is to be
wrought for the man’s self; hope of extraordinary divine aid should not lead to rash
undertakings; and an alliance with the wicked must never be made even to obtain
the greatest good. But if this is so, why does it not wear the form of a parable? It is
easy to explain it as a myth. The Messiah was regarded as the concentration of all that
is good ; and the devil, of all evil. He opposes Jesus, but can at farthest only produce
momentary bad thoughts, not bad resolutions. Many passages in Jewish writings indi
cate a common belief, that the Messiah would be tempted by the devil, as they say
Abraham had been before. If Jesus was the Messiah he must encounter this temptation,
which, like that of Hercules, was very suitably placed just at his entrance upon active
life. The scene of the temptation is well chosen, for the wilderness was not only the
dwelling-place of Azazel (Levit. xvi. 9, 10), Asmodeus (Tobit, viii. 3), and the expelled
demons; but it was the place where the whole nation, the collective son of God, was tempted
forty years; and there is a strong analogy between their temptations and that of Jesus.
The story was gradually formed out of these Jewish notions, without the slightest inten
tion to deceive.
There is a striking discrepancy, Mr Strauss affirms, between the Synoptics and John in
respect to many parts of Christ’s ministry. The former represent him to have spent the
greater part of his life in Galilee; while the latter places him in Jerusalem and Judea.
From them we should suppose he spent all his life in Galilee and the Peraea, before his
last visit to Jerusalem, while John relates four previous journeys to that place, and a
visit to Bethany. If John is in the right, the Synoptics were ignorant of an essential
part of Christ’s ministry; but if the latter are in the right, then he has invented a great
part of the history, or at least transferred it to a wrong place.
We pass over the chronological and many other difficulties. The Synoptics and John
disagree in respect to the assumption of the office and title of the Messiah. According to
John, Jesus confessed early that he was the Messiah, and the disciples remained faithful
to the conviction, that he spoke the truth (i. 42, 46, 50), To follow the Synoptics, he
did not take this title until a late period of his life; he supposes a special revelation had
annnounced the fact to Peter (Matthew xvi. 17), and charges the apostle to tell no man of
it. Two views may be taken of the case. Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist, and
after his teacher was cast into prison he preached repentance, and the approach of the
Messiah, and concluded that he was himself that Messiah. This view would account for
the fact, that he was disturbed when called by this name, and therefore forbid his dis
ciples to speak of him in that relation. But since these prohibitions are doubtful, and if
real, they may be accounted for, without supposing Jesus was not thoroughly convinced
of bis Messiahship, for it cannot be supposed that he, who made such a revolution in the
world as no other man has ever done, ever faltered in the midst of his course, in his con
viction that he was the Messiah. Since, then, he must have had a clear consciousness of
his calling, we conclude that he was convinced of his Messiahship, from the time of his
first appearance in that relation, but was somewhat reserved in expressions of this con
viction, because he preferred his disciples should gradually learn the truth from the silent
testimony of his life and works.
The Synoptics, says Mr Strauss, never speak of the pre-existence of Jesus, while John
often mentions it. Now, the pre-existence of the Messiah was an article of faith with the
Jews, soon after Christ, and it is probable they believed it before his time. But it must
�13
remain doubtful whether Jesus entertained this idea, or whether John has ascribed it to
him without any authority.
Mr Strauss considers the story of the woman of Samaria an unhistorical myth. . The
whole scene has a legendary and poetic colouring. The position at the well is the “idyllic
locality of the old Hebrew stories.” The scene is the same as in the stories of Eliezer,
Jacob, and Moses, all of whom meet women at a well. In this case, the woman, weak
and good-humoured, who had had five husbands, but then had none, is a symbol of the
Samaritan people, who had forsaken Jehovah, &c., &c. This.story, then, is only a poetic
account of the ministry of Jesus among the Samaritans, which itself is not a matter of
history, but is only “ a legendary prelude of the extension of Christianity” among that
people after Christ’s death.
But we must press on with more rapid wheels. The calling of the apostles presents
numerous difficulties, for there are great discrepancies between the accounts of John and
the Synoptics. It is not probable Jesus understood the character of men at first glance
of their persons (John i. 46, seq., though the Jews expected the Messiah, odorando judicare,
as Schottgen has it); nor is it probable the disciples would immediately forsake all and
follow him. These stories are mythical, and evident imitations of the legendary history
of Elijah and his followers. As Elisha left his oxen and ran after Elijah (1 Kings xix.
19, seq.), so the disciples presently left their nets and followed Jesus. Elisha received
permission to go and take leave of his parents, but now the call of the Messiah is so
urgent, that he rejects a young man who made the same request (Luke ix. 60, seq.), and
will not suffer a convert even to go and bury his father. The historical fact may be, that
some of his disciples were fishermen, but they must have come gradually into their con
nection with Jesus.
John does not mention that the twelve disciples were sent on a mission ; and the
Synoptics relate nothing of their baptizing converts during their teacher’s life. It is pro
bable Jesus had a body of twelve disciples; but Luke’s statement, that he had also a
larger circle of seventy disciples, is not confirmed by any other evangelist, by the book of
Acts, nor by any Epistle. It is evidently formed in imitation of the story of seventy
elders in the Pentateuch. The accounts of Peter’s fishing expeditions, and Christ’s mira
culous draught of fishes, like that of Pythagoras, are self-contradictory, and all mythical.
There is a great difference between Christ’s discourses in John, and the Synoptics ; they
have but few expressions in common; even their internal character is entirely different.
.The latter differ among themselves in this respect: Matthew gives large masses of dis
course, Luke short discourses on different occasions, and Mark offers but a meagre report
of his sayings. Matthew’s report of the sermon on the mount differs very widely from
that of Luke ; many of the expressions in Matthew’s report are obviously misplaced ; for
example, Jesus could not, at the commencement of his ministry, have declared that he
came to fulfil the law and the prophets, for he had not declared himself the Messiah, of
whom alone this was expected. By comparing all the accounts together, we see, says
Mr Strauss, that “ the granulary discourses of Jesus have not been dissolved and lost in
the stream of oral tradition, but they have, not rarely, been loosened from their natural
connection, washed away from their original position, and like bowlders rolled to places
where they do not properly belong. By this comparison, we find that Matthew has not
always restored the fragments to their original connection; but yet, like a skilful col
lector, for the most part, has made an intelligible arrangement, joining like with like ;
while in the other two Gospels, some small pieces are suffered to lie, where chance has
thrown them, in the chasms between large masses of discourse, and Luke has sometimes
given himself the pains to arrange them artificially, but has not been able to restore the
natural connection.”—Vol. I. p. 63.
We pass over the alleged instructions of the twelve, and the parables, where the only
difficulty lies in the discrepancy of the several narratives. Mr Strauss thinks the contro
versial discourses of Jesus are genuine, because they correspond so closely to the spirit
and tone of rabbinical explanations of Scripture at that time. The discourses which John
ascribes to Jesus present greater difficulties. Let us take the conversation with Nico
demus. He is not mentioned by the other evangelists. It is difficult to believe that, if
John’s account is true, so distinguished a follower of Jesus as Nicodemus would be omitted
by Matthew, an immediate disciple of Christ,—to follow the tradition. Still more difficult
• is it to believe he would be forgotten by the oral tradition, which was the source of the
Synoptical Gospels, which remember Joseph of Arimathea, and the two pious Marys.
This difficulty is so great, that we are tempted to ask if it is not more natural that John
has followed a traditional legend, and that there never was such a man as Nicodemus ?
The Synoptics relate that the mysteries of the Messiah were understood by babes and
�14
sucklings, but were concealed from the wise and prudent. They mention Joseph of
Arimathea as the only disciple from “ the better sort” of people. John says the Pharisees
attempted to “put Jesus down,” by saying, none of the rulers or Pharisees, but only the
ignorant and infamous populace, believed on him. Celsus subsequently made this objection,
which was, no doubt, often brought in the early times of Christianity. So long as only
the poor and unlearned embraced this religion, they comforted themselves by Christ’s
blessings pronounced upon the poor and simple; but when men of “ character and
standing” became Christians, they wished to find others of their own class among the
direct disciples of Jesus. Not finding any such, they could say, “they were his secret
followers, who came to him by night, for fear of the Jews ” (John xiii. 42, seq.; xix.
39). Joseph of Arimathea was one of this class ; but more than one such was needed.
Therefore this story was formed to remove the difficulty. The Greek name of Nicodemus
clearly indicates his connection with “higher classes ” of society in Judea. He is men
tioned only in John’s Gospel, because this is the most modern, and was composed in a
community where the above objection was most keenly felt.
But this is only a conjecture ; and even if it is well-grounded, it should excite no pre
judice against the conversation itself. This may, in all its essential features, be a genuine
discourse Jesus held with one of the common people. It is incredible that a Jewish
teacher should not have understood the new birth: but it was for the interest of the story
to show how far Jesus rose above other Jewish teachers. They were but fools compared
to the Great Teacher. Nicodemus applies to earthly things what Jesus asserts of hea
venly things. It is not probable that Jesus really spoke in the manner John relates, for
this manner differs from that of the Synoptics. There he dwells on particular points,
“ with genuine pedagogical assiduity,” until he has completely explained them, and then
passes on, step by step, to other instructions, as a true teacher must do. But in the
fourth Gospel, he speaks in a desultory and exaggerated manner, which can be explained
only by supposing it was the narrator’s design to set the teacher’s wisdom and the pupil’s
ignorance in the most striking contrast.
John makes Jesus speak very differently from the Synoptics; for example, in Matthew,
Jesus defends his violation of the Sabbath by three practical arguments, the example of
David eating the holy bread, of the priests sacrificing on the Sabbath, and of a man saving
the life of a beast on that day. But in John he uses the metaphysical argument, drawn
from the uninterrupted activity of God : “My Bather worketh hitherto.” Besides, there
is the closest analogy between the language of Jesus in the fourth Gospel and that of
John’s first Epistle, and those passages of the Gospel in which either this Evangelist
himself, or John the Baptist, speaks; and since this language differs from that of the
other Gospels, we must conclude the words belong to John, and not to Jesus. Perhaps
he invents suitable occasions (as Plato has done), and writes down his own reflections in
the form of his master’s discourses. His frequent repetition of the same thought, or form
of expression, is quite striking. We must conclude that this Evangelist treated the
authentic tradition in the freest manner, and in the tone and spirit of the Alexandrians,
or Hellenists.
We pass over a long statement of discrepancies between the several Gospels, and other
matters, of greater or lesser importance, which Mr Strauss has treated with his usual free
dom, learning, and dialectical clearness of vision. His explanation of the several stories
of the sinful women, who anointed the feet of Jesus, is quite ingenious, to say nothing
more. He supposes that they all grew out of one simple story. “ We have, then, a group
of five histories, the centre of which is the narrative of a woman anointing Jesus (Matt,
xxvi. 6, seq.; Mark xiv. 3, seq.); John’s account of a sinful woman (viii. 1, seq.), and
Luke’s of Mary and Martha (x. 38, seq.), occupy the extreme right and left; while Luke’s
picture of his anointing by a sinful woman (vii. 36, seq.), and John’s by Mary (xii. 1,
seq.), complete the piece. All may be but different delineations of the same event.”
We come next to the miracles of Jesus. Miracles of various kinds were commonly
expected of the Messiah, who was to surpass all the former prophets and deliverers. Now
Moses had furnished food and water in a miraculous manner ; Elisha had opened the blind
eyes, healed the sick, and raised the dead. The prophets had predicted nearly the same
things in general, and some of them in special, of the Messiah (Isaiah, xxxv. 5; xlii. 7),
and according to the Gospels Jesus did more than realise these expectations. The fact,
that men demanded “a sign” from him proves nothing against his miracles, for these
demands seem to have been made after a display of miraculous power. He censures the
love of miracles ; but this does not prove he would never perform one on a suitable occa
sion. But when he says no sign shall be given unto that generation, &c., Mr Strauss
concludes he refuses to perform any miracles whatever before any of his contemporaries. This
�15
statement is quite inconsistent with the miraculous narratives in the Gospels, but it agrees
perfectly well with the preaching and letters of the Apostles ; for there (excepting a
general statement in Acts ii. 22, and x. 38), the miracles are passed over in silence, and
all rests on his resurrection; and this would not be so unexpected, nor would it make an
epoch in the world, if Jesus had previously raised more than one from the dead, and
wrought miracles of all sorts. Here, then, the question is, whether we are to explain
away the Gospel accounts of miracles, for the sake of the above refusal of Jesus to per
form them ; or doubt the genuineness and authenticity of this refusal; or in consideration
of that refusal, and the silence of the apostolical writings, to mistrust the numerous.mira
cles of the Gospels. The author devotes above two hundred and fifty pages to miracles
in general and particular. We shall only notice some of his most striking remarks.
It was a common opinion of the Jews, that certain diseases were caused by demons; Jesus
himself seems to have shared this opinion. The belief, of course, is not well founded. Some of
the accounts in which Jesus is said to expel these demons are self-contradictory; for example,
it cannot be true that there were two Gadarene madmen, so fierce as they are represented,
who yet lived together. They would destroy one another. Mark and Luke, with greater
probability, mention but one demoniac in this place. These several accounts, which con
flict with one another, present numerous difficulties. The demoniac knows Jesus is the
Messiah; in Matthew, he calls out, “ Hast thou come to torment, me ?” &c.; in Luke, he
falls down and worships Jesus, and in Mark, he knows him at a distance, runs to him, and
does homage. Here is a regular climax in the Christian tradition. But the greatest diffi
culty consists in the demon entering the swine; for as Olshausen has said, the Gadarene
swine in the New Testament, like Balaam’s ass in the Old, are a stone of stumbling and
a rock of offence. If we trust the account, the demon, at his own request, was transferred
from the body of the man to the swine, and possessed the latter as he had done the former.
Then the possessed animals rushed into the sea and were drowned. Here the conduct of
the demon is inexplicable; he entreated not to be cast out into the deep, but casts him
self into it. The character of Jesus is impaired by this story; for he must have known
the result of suffering the demons to enter this large herd of two thousand swine, and the
consequent loss their owners would sustain. He, therefore, is thus made “ accessory before
the fact,” and the naturalistic and supernaturalistic theories can give no satisfactory explana
tion of the difficulties. But considered as a mythical story, which grew naturally out of
the common opinions of the people, it is easily explained. It was commonly supposed
that demons must possess some body, and that they preferred impure places; therefore
the unclean bodies of the swine were the most suitable recipients of the demons, when
driven from the man. Josephus mentions a conjuror, who, to convince spectators that
he really expelled demons, ordered them to overturn a vessel of water, set near the pos
sessed man, as they came out of him, which they did to the satisfaction of all present.
Jesus meant to give a similar proof, and to render the proof doubly strong, the test is not
an inanimate body, placed near at hand, but a whole herd of swine, “ a. good way off,”
which the demons force to rush upon certain destruction, contrary to the instinct of self
preservation natural to all animals. This, then, was a proof of the expulsion of the
demons, and of their perfect subjection to Jesus. Besides, to magnify the powers of
Christ, he must not only cure simple, but difficult eases. Accordingly, that is represented
as a desperate case; the man was fierce and malignant; he dwelt naked in the tombs, and
broke asunder all chains that could be forced upon him ; and not only this, but he was
possessed by a whole legion of devils, thus presenting a case of the greatest possible diffi
culty. Matthew gives us the most simple form of the legend, thus constructed; Luke
renders it more artificial; and Mark adds still farther embellishments to it.
John mentions nothing concerning the demoniacs or their cure. Yet he must have shared
the common Jewish notions on this point, and especially if they were the views of J esus. It
cannot be said, he omitted these cases, which form a great part of Christ’s miracles in the
Synoptics, because it was unnecessary to repeat what they had recorded, for he more than
once allows himself such repetitions; nor can it be true, that he accommodated himself to
the delicate ears of his Greek converts, to whom demoniacal possessions would be offen
sive. It seems, therefore, that the fourth Gospel was written not by John, but by some
one who drew from the Christian tradition as received by the more refined Hellenists.
Another case of expelling a demon is evidently an imitation and improvement of a
similar case in the Old Testament. The disciples had failed in their attempt; but Jesus
cures him at a word. So Elisha restores a dead child after Gehazi, his servant, had tried
in vain (2 Kings, iv. 29, seq.). Moses and Elisha had cured the leprosy; the Messiah
must do the same. He also must literally fulfil figurative predictions of the prophets,
and give sight to the blind; John enlarges upon the statements of the Synoptics, and
�16
makes him cure a man born blind. They relate that he cured paralytics, and increased
bread, and restored a dead person; but John enlarges these wonders, and, according to
him, Jesus cures a man who had been diseased for thirty-eight years, changes water into wine,
and recals to life a man four days after his death, when the body was on the verge of dissolution.
Mr Strauss supposes the accounts of Jesus involuntarily curing such as touched him,—
as it were by a species of magnetic influence,—and even persons at a distance, whom he
had never seen, are mythical stories, which have grown out of the popular reverence for
Jesus. He places them on a level with similar stories in the Acts, of miraculous cures
wrought by Peter’s shadow, and Paul’s handkerchiefs andaprons (Acts v. 15 ; xix. 11, 12).
“It is not difficult to see what causes have produced this branch of the Gospel legends of
miracles, in distinction from the others. The weak faith of the people, unable to grasp
the divine spirit with the thoughts, strives to bring it down more and more to the level of
materal existence. Therefore, according to the later opinion, the reliques and bones of a
saint must work miracles after his death; Christ’s body must be actually present in the
transubstantiated bread and wine; and for the same reason, according to the earlier opinion,
the sanatory power of the New Testament-men adhered to their bodies, and even their
garments. The less men understand and adhere to the words of Jesus, the more anxious
will they be to seize upon his mantle; and the farther one is removed from sharing Paul’s
unconfined spiritual power, the more confidently will he carry home Paul’s gift of healing
in his pocket-handkerchief.”
Mr Strauss examines the several accounts where Jesus is said to raise the dead, and
finds a climax in the three instances mentioned: first, he restores a girl, on the bed where
she had died ; next, a young man in his cofin, before burial; and finally, Lazarus, who had
been dead four days, and was in the tomb. He enumerates all the difficulties that beset a
literal or mystical, natural or supernatural, interpretation of the passages, and concludes
that all the stories grew out of popular notions of the Messiah, or are copied from the
similar stories of Elisha’s wonderful works (1 Kings xvii. 7 ; 2 Kings iv. 18), or from the
predictions of the prophets.
He collects and dwells upon the difficulties of the alleged transfiguration of Jesus.
What was the use of this scene? Not to glorify Jesus, for his physical glorification is
unnecessary and childish. Why or how could Moses and Elijah appear to him, and for
what purposes ? Not to inform Jesus of his death—he had himself fortold it; not to
strengthen him for future troubles, for it did not effect this object—and we not know that
he needed aid at that time; not to confirm his disciples, for only three were present, and
they were asleep, and were not permitted to relate the events until after the resurrection.
Does God speak in an audible voice, and quote from the Old Testament ? The theories
of interpreters of the various schools are in part absurd, and all inadequate to remove the
difficulties. But the whole story has growm out of the Messianic expectations of the Jews,
and an imitation of scenes in the Old Testament. The Jews expected the Messiah would
appear with a face far more resplendent than that of Moses—“ a mere manhis splendour
would extend “ from one hinge of the world to the other,” was the poetic expression.
Moses had been glorified on a mountain; God had appeared to him in a cloud. The same
scene is repeated, and Jesus is glorified on a mountain, in presence of the two re
presentatives of the Jewish system, who were expected to appear. Moses and Elijah, the
founders of the theocratical law, and of theocratical prophecy, appear as the supporters
of the Messiah, who fulfils the law and the prophets, and completes the kingdom of God.
God appears in the clouds ; and acknowledges him as his son, by a quotation from the
Law, the Psalms, and the Prophets. (Ps. ii. 7; Isa. xlii. 1; and Deut. xviii. 15).
PART SECOND WILL BE PUBLISHED IN OCTOBER.
John Robertson, 21 Maxwell Street, Glasgow.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Strauss's Life of Jesus, examined by Theodore Parker
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Parker, Theodore [1810-1860]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [Glasgow]
Collation: 16 p. ; 20 cm.
Series title: Tracts for the times
Series number: No. 8
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat).
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[John Robertson]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1852]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N534
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (Strauss's Life of Jesus, examined by Theodore Parker), 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
David Friedrich Strauss
Jesus Christ
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/3907d2875d7cf7ea694c47596628f0cb.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ZcuhF8BlsgHHfNAmGjlC%7EmjmbEahXm4M1gJZ7Iqb-dDkFUSumPOHr-5Z1D8lTJCf3gATaZwEebQU0TH4FH2ORFnH3VRKaJ7CQj16JwJT%7E2NVH3TOv9ntNltvpg9DLoG8FAxVrarK0PgYEEgxaxnR6Kv1rbUlm%7EgPwpiplfuVYvEmc3Cp6QCJAE9Jx0%7EF6WNgKukO6sVigJe-qsX8QLizv51FJhjTjDCPLNnV19fYXuByGxNZbhTYhcZvW2N6JhTpBt47zd%7EwHIv3c%7Ep7i4E%7E23TTIFCIgxwLOMARmIiq0HkCGKTUpV0vD3nVpbiYnl6U1o9CDfWHJwoNRPx-lz%7EQUw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bd75be467d4b782ee1c3d252d9ee3634
PDF Text
Text
I the
true temptation
OF JESUS.
BY
PBOFESSOK F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
\
�WRNBUII, AND SPEAKS, PRINTEE3, EDINBURGH
�THE THUE TEMPTATION OP JESUS.
VERY one who has opened the New Testament is
aware that in the first and third Gospel a
remarkable story is found (alluded to also in the
second Gospel) in which the devil is represented to
have assailed Jesus with three special temptations,
and to have been repelled by quotation of Old Testa
ment texts. That it is impossible to maintain the
literal truth of this account has been reluctantly con
ceded by writers, who, like the author of “ Ecce
Homo,” are wholly unconcerned to ascertain when,
where, by whom, and with what means of knowledge,
these narratives were penned. Those who desire to
save their credit, try to rid them of a damaging burden
by declaring this scene to be mytfwW. No spectator
is pretended. The idea that Jesus communicated
such inward trials to his disciples is contrary to
everything which is reported concerning Jlis charJtl acter: for Jte is everywhere represented as wholly
I uncommunicative, self-contained, more or less
mysterious, and moving in a separate region of
thought and feeling from the disciples. Evidently
this story does but express the opinion of the first
Christians, while Jesus was as yet believed to be only
human, that he, as others, must have, had a struggle
against temptations, and therefore, against the devil.
It is not here intended to point out what is plain of
itself, that none of the temptations are worthy of the
acumen attributed to the experienced and wily Satan;
E
I
�6
The True Temptation of fesus.
and are merely puerile in fiction, whether Jesus be
imagined as the Second Person of the Divine Trinity,
or merely as a great and holy, but human prophet.
Here I intend to give prominence to that which I
believe to be the fundamental trial of a religious
reformer, especially when he attains great ascendancy
and commands high veneration. But first I must
say, I shall be truly sorry, if any Trinitarian read
these pages, and find himself wounded. I do not
address him. I argue on the assumption that Jesus
was subject to human limitations like all the rest of
us, and that it is our duty to criticise him and the Z
story of him if it be of sufficient importance.
i
hat are the temptations of the prophet, can be no
secret in the present day: we see them in the
ordinary life of the admired preacher. To be run
after by a multitude, to be ministered to by fascinated
ladies, to see grey-haired men submissively listening
and treasuring up words,—easily puffs a young
preacher into self-conceit. In one who has too much
strong sense to be drawn into light vanity, fresh and
fresh success inspires, first, the not unreasonable hope
or belief that he is fulfilling a great work, and is
chosen for it by God, (not for his own merit, but be
cause, if a work is to be done, some one must be
chosen for it); next, an undue confidence in the truth
and weight of his own. utterances, an extravagant
conviction that whoever resists his 'word, impugns
God’s truth, and makes himself the enemy of God.
In the denunciations of Luther against Zuingle, his
own wiser and more temperate coadjutor, in the
vehemences of John Knox, in the cruelty of Calvin
to Servetus, we see variously developed the same
dangerous tendency. If we cast the eye eastward,
to more illiterate nations, to those accustomed to
revere the hermit and the semi-savage as akin to the
prophet, to peoples whose homage expresses itself by
prostration, we see the tendency of the prophet to
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
7
assume a regal and dictatorial mien even in the garb
of a half naked Bedouin. Many an eastern monk or
prophet, Syrian, Persian, or Indian, has been obeyed
as a prince; some have been attended on by large
armies : to some the native king has paid solemn
obeisance. In ancient Greece, where philosophy
overtopped religion, ascetic philosophers have been
accepted as plenipotentiary legislators; in which, no
doubt, we see portrayed, on a small scale, the legis
lative influence of a Buddha, a Confucius, or a
Zoroaster. When an Indian prophet found it natural
for multitudes to kneel to him or to prostrate them
selves, how hard must it have been to accept such
homage and retain a sense of human equality! how
hard not to think it reasonable that others bow down,
and unreasonable that any stand up and argue with
the prophet as his equal!
In the Gospels and Acts the habit of prostration
among these nations is sufficiently indicated; and we
see how it is resented (according to the narrative) by
Peter. When Cornelius falls at Peter’s feet and does
homage (certainly intending respect only, not divine
worship), Peter regards it as quite unbecoming from
a man to a man. But Jesus is represented as accept
ing such homage without the least hesitation, and
apparently with approval. The cases are not few,
nor confined to any one narrative. Matt. viii. 2,
“ There came a leper and worshipped him.” Matt,
ix. 18, “There came a certain ruler and worshipped
him.” Matth. xiv. 33, “ They worshipped him, say
ing, Of a truth thou art the \or a] Son of God.”
Matt. xv. 25, “Then came the woman and
worshipped him, saying, Lord! help me.” On this
Jesus comments approvingly, “ 0 woman, great is
thy faith.” Matt. xvii. 14, “There came a certain
man, kneeling down to him and saying, Lord 1 have
mercy on my son ! ” Matt. xx. 20, “ There came
the mother of Zebedee’s children, worshipping him,”
�'8 .
The True Temptation of fetus,
Matt, xxviii. 9, “ They held him by the feet and wor
shipped him—this is after the resurrection, thereby
differing in kind from the rest. The same remark
applies to verse 17. We have substantially the same
fact in Mark i. 40; v. 6, 22, -33 ; vii. 25 ; x. 17. In
■the last passage the rich young man kneels to Jesus: he
was not so represented in Matt. xix. 6. Luke v. 8,
“ Simon Peter fell down at Jesus’ knees.” Luke v.
12, “A man full of leprosy fell on his face, and be
sought Jesus.” In Luke vii. an account , is given,
perhaps not at all authentic. A woman is repre
sented to bathe the feet of Jesus with her tears, and
wipe them dry with her long hair, and after that,
anoint them with ointment and kiss his feet inces
santly. Jesus, according to the narrative, highly
applauds her conduct, and avows that “ therefore, her
sins, which are many, are forgiven.” Such conduct
on his part is far above criticism, if he was either a
person of the Divine Trinity, or a superhuman being,
who existed before all worlds and all angels, being
himself the beginning of the creation of God. I can
not doubt that the writer, called Luke, believed Jesus
to be superhuman, and therefore found no impro
priety in the conduct here imputed to him; but I
do not understand how any one who regards him as
a human being, can fail to censure him in the
strongest terms, if he believe this account. As I see
special grounds for doubting it, (inasmuch as it looks
like a re-making of the story reported in Matt,
xxvi. 6-13, which it exaggerates), I lay no stress upon
it,: but even in that other account there is a selfcomplacency hardly commendable in a mere man.
Again, in Luke viii. 20, we read, “the woman fell
down before him.” She doers not fall down in
Matt. ix. 22; therefore, here also the story may
■have been “ improved ” by credulity. But it is need
less to follow this topic further. Suffice it to say,
that though we do not know exactly how much to
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
9
Relieve, though we have frequent reason to suspect
exaggeration, yet the narratives all consistently
represent Jesus to have received complacently an
unmanly and degrading submission from his followers,
such as no apostle would have dndured for a moment;
and it is hard to believe that such reports could have
gained currency, with no foundation ctif nil. If, there
fore, we are to criticise Jesu'S on the belief that he ~z
was’man, and not God; nor a superhuman spirit, we /
must admit, I tliinlt, that a real and dangerous
temptation beset him in this matter. He was prone
to take pleasure in seeing men and women profound
in their obeisance, prostrate in mind and soul before
his superior greatness ;—for prostration of the body
brings satisfaction to pride, only as it denotes
prostration of soul It is difficult, with these narra
tives before us, to think that Jesus took to himself
that precept which Peter gives to the elders, that
they be not lords Over God’s heritage, but be subject
one tb another, and clothed with humility, that they
may be ensamples to the flock. Indeed, unless we
utterly throw away all the narratives, it is hardly too
much to say, that this is the very opposite to the
portrait of Jesus. If we will accept the theory thit
he was superhuman, we can justify his immeasurable
assumption of superiority; but the fact remains, that
in places, too many to reject, he puts himself forward
as “ lord over God’s heritage.”
Two classes of facts, presented in the narratives,
must be carefully separated. The former is the
'general superiority asserted by Jesus for himself;
the latter, is the special assumption of Messianic dig
nity. On the latter, there is notoriously an irrecon
cilable diversity of the fourth gospel from the rest.
The writer of the fourth, unquestionably ascribing to
Jesus pre-existence with God in some mysterious
way, and sonship in a sense perfectly unique, repre
sents his Messiahship as notorious to John the
�io
The True Temptation of^Jesus.
Baptist, to Andrew and Philip, from the very begin
ning,—to be avowed by Nathanael (whoever this
was),''and to be- preached by Jesus to Nicodemus
and to the woman of Samaria. All this is in so
flat contradiction to the three first gospels, that
nothing historical can be made out of the account;
and in trying to attain a true picture of Jesus, f :
necessarily set aside the fourth gospel as a mischie|w~~
ous romance.—Nevertheless, the element which I
call an assumption of general superiority, is as com
plete and persistent in the three first gospels as in
the fourth.
Keshub Chunder Sen entitles it “a sublime
egotism” in Jesus, to say, “Come unto me, and I
will give you rest: take my yoke upon you, and
learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in spirit.”
Yet if Luther, or John Knox, or Wesley had said it,
we should adduce it in proof that he was eminently
lacking in that very grace,—lowliness of spirit,—for
which he was commending himself. But is this the
only egotism ascribed to him in Matthew 1 Nay,
but in the celebrated beatitudes of the sermon on
the Mount, which some esteem the choice flower and
prime of the precepts of Jesus, he winds up with,
“ Blessed are ye when men shall speak evil against
you falsely for my sake.'’ He does not say “ for
’
righteousness’ sake,” if the narrative can be trusted.
The discourse continues like itself to the end, for in
the close he says : “ Many shall say to me in that
day, Lord ! Lord ! have we not prophesied in thy
name, .... and then will I profess unto them, I
never knew you : depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.” This is, it may be said, a very energetic
way of declaring, that no pretence of following in his
train as a prophet could compensate for personal
iniquity. As such we may accept it: but it remains
clear, that he is claiming for himself a position
above the human; such as no beauty or truth of teach-
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
11
ing could ever commend, as rightful from men to a
man, to the conscience of those reared in the schools
of modern science : while of course, if he claimed to
be higher than man, the first reasonable necessity,
and therefore his, first duty, was to exhibit the
proofs of supernatural knowledge and authority.
Undoubtedly, the alternative lies open of disbelieving
the Evangelist. It may be urged, that the text
represents Jesus as also saying that in his name
they will claim to have cast out devils and done
many wonderful works; but that this is an exaggera
tion belonging to a later time, and so therefore
may the pretensions be, with which it is coupled.
Well; so be it: let us then look further.
According to Matt. ix. 6, Jesus claimed power
to forgive sin ; he brought on himself rebuke for it,
but proceeded to justify himself by working a miracle.
Whence did his disciples get the idea of his advancing
such extravagances, if really he did not go farther
than his disciples James and John? Presently after,
he is represented as preaching that he is the. bride
groom of the Church, in whose presence the disciples
cannot mourn, and therefore ought not to fast; but
that when he is taken away, then they will fast.
How very peculiar and strange a sentiment to invent
for him, if it was not uttered ! Does it not rather
seem to have the stamp of individualism and truth,
thoroughly as it is in harmony with the tales of his
rejoicing to see men and women kneel before him ?
Next when Jesus sends out twelve disciples to say,
“ The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he is repre
sented to assert, that it shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than
for the house or city which has not received his
messenger. Surely, if any one were now to knock
at our house door with such a formula of words, and
on the strength of it expect to be accepted with the
honours of a prophet, only the weak-minded would
�12
The True Temptation of fetus.
give him pleasant reception. Yet no ground what
ever appears for believing that there was anything
to accredit such messengers than, any more than now^
certainly nothing more appears in the narrative,
which quite consistently everywhere holds, that
-Jesus regarded the non-reception of his messengers as
a super-eminent guilt, merely because it was he who
sent them.
When it is added, “ ye shall be hated of all men
for my uamds sake’' we are perhaps justified in
esteeming that prediction as an after-invention of
popular credulity. But in the same discourse (Matt,
x. 23) we alight for the first time on the remarkable
phrase, “ The Son of Man,” afterwards indisputably
applied by Jesus to himself. “ Ye shall not have
gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man
be come.” No one but Jesus himself ever calls him
the Son of Man. Whatever he then meant, the
book puts into his mouth yet more of sublime
egotism. Whosoever shall confess me before men,
(says he), him will I confess before my Father which
is in heaven : but whosoever shall deny me before
men, him mil I also deny before my Father which is
heaven. He that loseth his life for my sake shall
find it. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he
that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me.”
Certainly, when we begin to pare down these utter
ances, and try to reduce them to something that
would not be highly offensive in James or Paul, we
seem in danger of cutting away so much that is
characteristic, as to impair all confidence in what
remains. But unless we are bound to reject the
pervading colour of the narrative, I feel it not too
much to say, that in a mere man, the self-exaltation
approaches to impiety. What can it concern any
of us, that his brother-man should “ deny him ” before
our common Father 1 Hqw suddenly would the
honour which we felt for a preacher be turned into
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
ij
.grief and disappointment, or even indign^tipp, -if
pve heard him to say, “ Blessed is he, whoever shall
not be offended in me!” He would fall in our
.esteem, from the higli/est pinnacle to a very, low ^7
•.place, nor could any pretence of “ sublime egotism ’
save him.
" In the same chapter in which the last words occur
(Matt, xi.) the Evangelist goes on into language.not
dissimilar to that of the fourth gospel. “ All things
are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man
knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth
any man the Father save the Son; and he to whom
soever the Son will reveal him.” When it is
considered that, although the nucleus of this gospel
probably existed before the first century was ended,
we have absolutely no guarantee that the text was
finally settled, as we now have it, much before the
'time of Irenseus, toward the close of the second
century; no one has a right to be very confident that
this passage, so strongly smacking of the doctrines
■which won ascendancy in that century, was not intro
duced at a later time. Perhaps the more reasonable
course here, is to strike out verse 27, (about the Son
and the Father) as foisted upon Jesus by a later
generation. What then shall be said of the words
which follow, already quoted, “ Come.unto me, take
my yoke on you, and I will give you. rest?” I can
accept them, if he is God, or a pre-existing Mighty
Spirit. I cannot accept them if he was onLy man : I
then do not entitle them sublime at all, but some
thing else.
h .
Something or other to the same effect is for.ever
cropping .up in this narrative of Matthew, which I
purposely take as giving a more human representation
of J esus than Luke or John. He is presently reported
to say (Matt. xii. 6), “ In this place is one greater
than the temple. .... the Son of Man is Lord even
of the Sabbath day.” Unless his wotds have been
�14
The True Temptation of Jesus.
monstrously distorted, he intended to assert that he
was himself the Son of Man spoken of by Daniel the
Prophet, that he was personally greater than the
temple, and was Lord even of the Sabbath-day.
Will any one say, that Jesus merely claimed the
right possessed by every man to interpret the law of
the Sabbath by the dictates of good sense, and that
he .regarded every pious man as greater than a temple
built of stone; and that the egotistic form of his
utterance was an accident ? In that case it certainly
was a highly unfortunate accident, and we may add, an
accident often repeated, which generated in his dis
ciples a veneration for him too great for humanity.
But accident so systematic is surely no accident at
all. If a good man who makes no pretensions is
worshipped as a god after his death, he is guiltless^ ;/
but if a MAN be worshipped as a god, who has i
made enormous personal pretensions,—and if a
decisive weight in the argument for worshipping
him is, that he has left us no choice between
worship and reprobation, can one who regards
the superhuman claims untenable, doubt that self
exaltation and monstrous vanity was Ja deplorable
foible, in the prophet ? I find only two ways of
avoiding the disagreeable inference : (1), by the
theory of Paul, or some higher theory; (2.) by so
rejecting all our accounts of his doctrine and miracles
alike as untrustworthy, that nothing is left us to
trust at all, nothing on which a faithful picture of
Jesus can be founded.
From beginning to end the narrative has but one
colour as regards the self-exaltation of Jesus. Matt,
xii., “Behold! a greater than Solomon is here.”
Matt, xiii., “Many prophets and righteous men have
desired to see the things which ye see, and hear the
things which ye hear. Blessed are your eyes, for
they see; and your ears, for they hear.” And what
was this so precious instruction ? the Parable of the
�ThqTrue Temptation of'Jesus.
r5
Sower ! Surely no sober-minded person can esteem
this so highly above all the teaching of Hebrew
sages.
\
.
But I pass to a new topic in the sixteenth chapter
of Matthew,—the anger of Jesus, when he is asked
for a sign from heaven. He replies by calling the
persons who asked him hypocrites, when jevidently,
according to the notions of that age and nation, it
was a most reasonable and proper request. In fact,
the narratives elsewhere represent him as giving
them miraculous signs, which are signs from heaven,
in abundance j insomuch that, if he had been repre
sented as here appealing to these signs, and alleging
that these very persons had already witnessed them
plentifully, his imputation of hypocrisy might have
seemed natural. But that is not his line of argument.
He says : “ A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh
after a sign,” as though the desire itself were wicked
ness, “ and there shall no sign be given unto it, but
the sign of the prophet Jonas.” And he left them
and departed. Such words refuse a sign not to the
individual only, but to the generation. Are we then
to believe that he consistently repudiated all pretence
of working miracle ? that he esteemed the desire of
seeing a miracle wrought in confirmation of his pre
eminent claims to be such a fatuous absurdity, that
he had a right^o heap contumelious epithets on the
head of any one who asked for it ? In favour of
this opinion, appeal may be made to the epistles of
Paul, who does not betray any knowledge whatever
that Jesus had wrought miracles. Let us tentatively
adopt this view. Then, first, what a heap of gross
misrepresentation is put before us in all four narratives
if Jesus not only never affected to work miracles,
but even vehemently flouted the idea itself and
rebuked those who desired it. Next, it will follow
that no justification of his high pretensions was
even attempted by him, and therefore no denuncia-
�16
'The True Temptation of Jesus.
tion of men for neglect of him was reasonable. It
follows that those resolved to justify him must cut
out all his denunciations likewise. Who will write
for us an expurgated gospel, tQ let us know what
was the true Jesus 1 Who will convince us, that
a history thus garbled carij. ever be truly recovered,
or deserves our intent study ? .
In the same chapter of Matthew (the sixteenth)
the momentous question is proposed to his disciples,
Whom say ye that I am ?” According to the
narrative, he first gave them the hint, what to reply,
by a leading question, “ Whom do men say that I, the
Son of Man, am ? ” but perhaps that is only a stupid
exaggeration of the narrator, who did not see what
it would imply. Let us then drop this portion of the
words.
He feels his way cautiously with the
disciples, and sounds them. Simon Peter replies,
“ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
Again I ask, Is this narrative grossly and delusively
false ? or may we trust a vague outline ? Accprding
to it, Jesus is lifted by the reply into a most exalted
state, “ Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonas,” says
he, “ for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven............... I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven*
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, .... &c.” After this outburst,
■what is it that we react as a consequence ? “ Then
charged he his disciples that they should tell no man
that he was Jesus the Christ.”
It seems utterly ^irrational and unworthy .alite of
* Any one who doubts whether Jesus ever uttered such
words, may fortify the doubt by opining that the words
have got into the gospel from Rev. iii. 7, where nevertheless
Jesus, so far from giving the “power of the keys ” to any
apostle, retains the power strictly in his own hand. The
words in Rev. iii. 7, are borrowed from Isaiah xxii. 22,
which have no reference to Messiah at all, according to any
scientific interpretation.
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
the most High God and of his specially anointed
Prophet (if one special Prophet was’ indeed so
promised), that Messiah should come into his
nation,—should expect subjection of mind from all
around,—should haughtily evade, instead of enlight
ening, those who mildly inquired into his claims to
authority; finally, should sedulously preserve his
incognito, and forbid his disciples to tell that he was
Messiah. Men may be either convinced or com
manded. To convince them you must kindly and can
didly answer their difficulties, and allow them to argue
against you; you must meet their questions as plainly
and honestly as possible, not browbeat or threaten
the interrogators, nor marvel over their unbelief and
stupidity. You must descend in the argument on
to' a perfect level with the man whom you desire to
convince,, and entirely lay aside all airs of authority,
even if you have authority. That is one course of
proceeding; but it is the very opposite of that
Imputed to Jesus. But if men are to be
if submission is to be required of them, you must
make some display of POWER.* In that , case you
seek to convince them, not that a precept is wise, or
a doctrine is true, but that you, its enunciator, have
a special right of dictation, drawing after it in the
hearer a special duty of submission. Of course those
with whom the idea of miracles is inadmissible, do not
ask for signs from heaven; not the less must they justify
the countrymen of Jesus in requiring from him some
credentials, when he claimed submission and used a
dictatorial tone. If the nation believed miracles to
be the marks of Messiah, and was m error, it
* Men of science appeal to power as an argument why
they should be believed, when want of leisure or talents
forbid‘the mastering of their arguments : thus Astronomers
appeal to their fore-knowledge of eclipses, and their power of
finding the longitude by their tables ; Electricians appeal to
the telegraph, and so’ on.
�18
The True Temptation of Jesus.
belonged to Messiah to unteach them the error,
and, as one aware of their folly, to take precautions
lest miracles be imputed to him. Surely it was
quite unjustifiable, to require submission from Priests
and Pharisees, yet exhibit to them no credentials what
ever of the mighty function with which he was
invested. If words dropping from the mouth of
Messiah were divine commands, which it was impious
to dispute, nothing could supersede the public an
nunciation of his office, and the display of his
credentials, whatever they might be. No evasions
are here endurable, on the ground of the political
danger to be incurred, or the propriety of giving
insufficient proof in order to try people’s “ faith.”
To say that political danger forbade, is to say that
God sent Messiah insufficiently prepared for his work,
and afraid to assume His functions publicly. As to
trying “ faith ” by insufficient proof, nothing can be
less rightful or more pernicious. If the proof ad
duced be of the right kind and appropriate, it cannot
be excessive, but may be defective; and if defective,
it is a cruel trap, as if designed to lead honesty astray.
The only plausibility in this notion rises from con
fusion of truths which we ought to see by light from
within, with truths which can only be established
from without. No man can know by his inward
faculties that a Messiah is promised from heaven,
nor what will be the external marks of Messiah.
False Messiahs had already come. To accept lightly
any one as Messiah was the height of imprudence, and
certainly could not be commended as pious. Under
such circumstances, to dissemble Messiahship, and
work upon susceptible minds by giving them evidence
necessarily imperfect, was conduct rather to be
imputed to a devil, than to a prophet from God, if
done with serious intent. Those who defend it,
plead that the evidence was moral, and did not need
external proofs. If so, on the one hand full freedom
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
19
of investigation was needed, not authority and brow
beating ; on the other, this alleges external proof to
be worse than superfluous,—to be in fact misleading;
so that to plead for its “ insufficiency” as a needful
trial of faith is a gross error. If external evidence
was wholly inappropriate, the producing of that
which you concede to be insufficient does but tend to
confuse and mislead the simple-hearted, and cause
unbelief in the strong-headed. But if external evi
dence is admissible and appropriate at cdl for faith
to rest upon, then it ought to be in quantity and
quality sufficient to make the faith reasonable and
firm. If only internal light is to the purpose of
faith, and external evidence was not wanted for
Messiah, then neither was an authoritative, Messiah
wanted at all; that is, a teacher to whom we should
submit without conviction; then it was right to
claim that Messiah would convince by argument and
reply to questions ; would invite question or opposi
tion, not dictate and threaten; then we have to
sweep away the greater part of the four Gospels as a
false representation of Messiah. Whatever else may
have been true, one thing is certainly false;—that
God sent a special messenger to teach authoritatively,
and that the messenger thus sent forbade his disciples
to publish his character and claims.
From narratives so disfigured by false representa
tion, as every one is obliged to confess them, who
does not believe the miracles, and seeks to defend
Jesus by remoulding the accounts of Him ; how can
any one be blamed for despairing to arrive at accurate
and sound knowledge concerning his character and
teaching? What right has any one to expect to
recover lost history, or to think worse of his brother
if he regard the effort to be waste time ? Yet if I
were to say, I seem to myself to know nothing of Jesus,
I should speak untruly; for in the midst of theobscurity
and. the inconsistencies of the narratives, there are
�ip
The True Teinptatiqn of ffsuT
some things unvarying, many things very hard to in
vent, and-others unlikely to be invented, yet easily
admitting explanation if we reason about Jesus as
we do about every other public teacher or reformer.
The details of doctrine are often untrustworthy, but
the-current, the broad tendencies, the style and tone
of the teacher, seem to have made too strong an
impression to be lost, though round them has been
gathered a plentiful accretion of mistake and fable.
In outline we must say that the first peculiarity of rhe
preacher was, that he did not comment upon the law
and prophets, but spoke dictatorially, dogmatically,
as’with authority—a thing quite right and proper,
while only moral truth is taught, which makes appeal
to the conscience of the hearer. But the Jews,
accustomed like the modern English to nothing but
comment and deduction from a sacred book, were
apt to enquire of Jesus by what right he spoke so
confidently, and paid so little deference to the learned^
On one occasion he is said to have given a very fair
reply, to the effect that they had listened to the
preaching of John the Baptist, without asking his
authority : “ If John might preach to you dogmati
cally, why may not I ? ” was the substance of that
argument. But it is clear that, numbers of honest
sincere Jews, impressed by the moral weight in these
preachings, had begun to inquire whether this was
not a renewal of divine prophecy, whether divine
prophets must not have some recognizable note of
their mission, other than the influence of their doc
trine on the human conscience; whether, in fine,
Jesus might not be the expected Messiah. This was
a very anxious question, especially since delusive
Messiahs had appeared; but it was a question that
Jews were sure to make, and the three narratives
before us, defective as they are, persuade me that it
was made, both in private talk, and in direct interro
gation to Jesus.
Now if we accept to the full the traditional Jewish
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
belief of what Messiah was to be, (which falls short
of the dignity ascribed to him by Christians),
it is incredible that after commencing his public
functions he should remain ignorant of his being
Messiah, or need confirmation from his disciples or
from others. But if Jesus had little trust in learned
Rabbis or traditional doctrine, he may have had a
very vague and imperfect belief as to what Messiah
was to be; and the idea that he himself was Messiah
may not have at all occurred to him, until after he
had experienced the zeal of the multitude, and was
aware that a rumour was gone abroad among the
people, that “ a great prophet was arisen,” and that
some said he was the Messiah. Can any one study *
his character as that of a man, subject to all human/ '
limitations, and not see, that the question, “ Am I
then possibly the Messiah ?” if at all entertained,
instantly became one of extreme interest and anxiety
to Jesus himself? Indeed from the day that it
fixed itself upon him for permanent rumination his
character could not but lose its simplicity. Pre
viously he thought only, What doctrine is true
- morality ? What are the crying sins of the day ?
But now his own personality, his own possible,
dignity, became matters of inquiry; and the inquiry
was a. Biblical one. He was brought hereby on to
the plane of the learned commentator, who studies
ancienAbooks to find out what has been promised and
predicted about a Messiah. An unlearned carpenter,
(\
however strong and clear-minded^ while dealing with a
purely moral question, was liable to lose all his super
iority and .be hurtfully entangled when entering into
literary interpretation. Wholly - to get rid of tradi
tional notions was impossible, yet,enough of distrust
would remain, to embarrass fixed belief and produce
vacillation, . Nothing is then more natural, than
that the teacher should desire to know what was the
general opinion concerning him, should be pleased
when it confirmed his rising hopes, should be elated
�2
The True Temptation of Jesus.
when Simon Peter declared him to be Messiah, and
should bless his faith, even if not with the extrava
gance of giving him the keys of the kingdom of
heaven ; finally, should be displeased with himself
and frightened at his own elation, and, in order to
repair his error, should charge his disciples to tell
no one that he was Messiah^not that he desired to
keep the nation in ignorance, but because he was J
himself conscious of uncertainty. After this his
conduct could not be straightforward and simple
Such is the only reasonable interpretation which
I have ever been able to see, of this perplexed aid
perplexing narrative, which is not likely to have
-nnf.hino-false
___ ™ ^4grown out of nothing. Jesus came into a false
rUv and of necessity* as 1 think*
�
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 true temptation of Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 22 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: The portrait is a photo that has been cut out and pasted to the title page. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. Date of publication from KVK. An annotated (proof?) copy bound in Conway Tracts 31.
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
CT159
G5743
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (The true temptation of Jesus), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Conway Tracts
Jesus Christ
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/d479c8506722c0cc627b74fefcd7d399.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=pxNbKcamVJ5t4h969mLzwNeQCmRjqXYV27hsTYYCuzqnJeDhdJWEkwhfo5kcb5oFAaXd5U80pPko2LXwmKtpVs7lHMcPFslXLxD2r48pMXI4EFjE79dL1-hvdJx0tBKgPL7DCy7lQP44SCLX1fs193kvvatZELwLCTh0Mf5EyOZVyRFatPUkgocxmdzv5tSjtpUaO0NML%7EJjUX3sYWJliauL1-uTTPSaFbJthzJW-APh2gbu5T9PXYDzZsCKXRWdqOSfdNW7hETmuF0nFhHRkdwbxMn-sjGgHRE-3L9y3rdQRwqJLXijvWmPjzTcrOfD%7EZlzPfA6SynCRYNNN16NfA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
06c13de82d0676c620458ffda3a3d2aa
PDF Text
Text
THE TRUE TEMPTATION
OF JESUS.
BY
PROFESSOR F. W. NEWMAN.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Sixpence.
�TURNBULL AND SPEARS; PRINTERS, EDINBURGH
�THE TBUE TEMPTATION OF JESUS.
VERY one who has opened the New Testament is
aware that in the first and third Gospel a
remarkable story is found (alluded to also in the
second Gospel) in which the devil is represented to
have assailed Jesus with three special temptations,
and to have been repelled by quotation of Old Testa
ment texts. That it is impossible to maintain the
literal truth of this account has been reluctantly con
ceded by writers, who, like the author of “ Ecce
Homo,” are wholly unconcerned to ascertain when,
where, by whom, and with what means of knowledge,
these narratives were penned. Those who desire to
save their credit, try to rid them of a damaging burden
by declaring this scene to be allegorical. No spectator
is pretended. The idea that Jesus communicated
such inward trials to his disciples is contrary to
everything which is reported concerning his char
acter: for he is everywhere represented as wholly
uncommunicative, self-contained, more or less
mysterious, and moving in a separate region of
thought and feeling from the disciples. Evidently
this story does but express the opinion of the first
Christians, while Jesus was as yet believed to be only
human, that he, as others, must have had a struggle
against temptations, and therefore, against the devil.
It is not here intended to point out what is plain of
itself, that none of the temptations are worthy of the
acumen attributed to the experienced and wily Satan;
E
�6
The True Temptation of fesus.
and are merely puerile in fiction, whether Jesus be
imagined as the Second Person of the Divine Trinity,
or merely as a great and holy, but human prophet.
Here I intend to give prominence to that which I
believe to be the fundamental trial of a religious
reformer, especially when he attains great ascendancy
and commands high veneration. But first I must
say, I shall be truly sorry, if any Trinitarian read
these pages, and find himself wounded. I do not
address him. I argue on the assumption that Jesus
was subject to human limitations like all the rest of
us, and that it is our duty to criticize him and the
story of him, if it be of sufficient importance.
AV hat are the temptations of the prophet, can be no
secret in the present day: we see them in the
ordinary life of the admired preacher. To be run
after by a multitude, to be ministered to by fascinated
ladies, to see grey-haired men submissively listening
and treasuring up words,—easily puffs a young
preacher into self-conceit. In one who has too much
strong sense to be drawn into light vanity, fresh and
fresh success inspires, first, the not unreasonable hope
or belief that he is fulfilling a great work, and is
chosen for it by God, (not for his own merit, but be
cause, if a work is to be done, some one must be
chosen for it); next, an undue confidence in the truth
and weight of his own utterances, an extravagant
conviction that whoever resists his word, impugns
God’s truth, and makes himself the enemy of God.
In the denunciations of Luther against Zuingle, his
own wiser and more temperate coadjutor, in the
vehemences of John Knox, in the cruelty of Calvin
to Servetus, we see variously developed the same
dangerous tendency. If we cast the eye eastward,
to more illiterate nations, to those accustomed to
revere the hermit and the semi-savage as akin to the
prophet, to peoples whose homage expresses itself by
prostration, we see the tendency of the prophet to
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
7
assume a regal and dictatorial mien even in the garb
of a half naked Bedouin. Many an eastern monk or
prophet, Syrian, Persian, or Indian, has been obeyed
as a prince; some have been attended on by large
armies : to some the native king has paid solemn
obeisance. In ancient Greece, where philosophy
overtopped religion, ascetic philosophers have been
accepted as plenipotentiary legislators; in which, no
doubt, we see portrayed, on a small scale, the legis
lative influence of a Buddha, a Confucius, or a
Zoroaster. When an Indian prophet found it natural
for multitudes to kneel to him or to prostrate them
selves, how hard must it have been to accept such
homage and retain a sense of human equality! how
hard not to think it reasonable that others bow down,
and unreasonable that any stand up and argue with
the prophet as his equal!
In the Gospels and Acts the habit of prostration
among these nations is sufficiently indicated; and we
see how it is resented (according to the narrative) by
Peter. When Cornelius falls at Peter’s feet and does
homage (certainly intending respect only, not divine
worship), Peter regards it. as quite unbecoming from
a man to a man. But Jesus is represented as accept
ing such homage without the least hesitation, and
apparently with approval. The cases are not few,
nor confined to any one narrative. Matt. viii. 2,
“ There came a leper and worshipped him.” Matt,
ix. 18, “There came a certain ruler and worshipped
him.” Matth. xiv. 33, “ They worshipped him, say
ing, Of a truth thou art the [or a] Son of God.”
Matt. xv. 25, “Then came the woman and
worshipped him, saying, Lord! help me.” On this
Jesus comments approvingly, “ 0 woman, great is
thy faith.” Matt. xvii. 14, “There came a certain
man, kneeling down to him and saying, Lord ! have
mercy on my son ! ” Matt. xx. 20, “ There came
the mother of Zebedee’s children, worshipping him,”
�8
The True Temptation of fesus.
Matt, xxviii. 9, “ They held him by the feet and wor
shipped him—this is after the resurrection, thereby
differing in kind from the rest. The same remark
applies to verse 17. We have substantially the same
fact in Mark i. 40; v. 6, 22, 33 ; vii. 25 ; x. 17. In
the last passage the rich young man kneels to Jesus: he
was not so represented in Matt. xix. 6. Luke v. 8,
“ Simon Peter fell down at Jesus’ knees.” Luke v.
12, “A man full of leprosy fell on his face, and be
sought Jesus.” In Luke vii. an account is given,
perhaps not at all authentic. A woman is repre
sented to bathe the feet of Jesus with her tears, and
wipe them dry with her long hair, and after that,
anoint them with ointment and kiss his feet inces
santly. Jesus, according to the narrative, highly
applauds her conduct, and avows that “ therefore,, her
sins, which are many, are forgiven.” Such conduct
on his part is far above criticism, if he was either a
person of the Divine Trinity, or a superhuman being,
who existed before all worlds and all angels, being
himself the beginning of the creation of God. I can
not doubt that the writer, called Luke, believed Jesus
to be superhuman, and therefore found no impro
priety in the conduct here imputed to him; but I
do not understand how any one who regards him as
a human being, can fail to censure him in the
strongest terms, if he believe this account. As I see
special grounds for doubting it, (inasmuch as it looks
like a re-making of the story reported in Matt,
xxvi. 6-13, which it exaggerates), I lay no stress upon
it: but even in that other account there is a selfcomplacency hardly commendable in a mere man.
Again, in Luke viii. 20, we read, “the woman fell
down before him.” She does not fall down in
Matt. ix. 22; therefore, here also the story may
have been “ improved ” by credulity. But it is need
less to follow this topic further. Suffice it to say,
that though we do not know exactly how much to
�The True Temptation of Jesus.
9
believe, though we have frequent reason to suspect
exaggeration, yet the narratives all consistently
represent Jesus to have received complacently an
unmanly and degrading submission from his followers,
such as no apostle would have endured for a moment;
and it is hard to believe that such reports could have
gained currency, with no foundation at all. If, there
fore, we are to criticize Jesus on the belief that he
was man, and not God, nor a superhuman spirit, we
must admit, I think, that a real and dangerous
temptation beset him in this matter. He was prone
to take pleasure in seeing men and women profound
in their obeisance, prostrate in mind and soul before
his superior greatness ;—for prostration of the body
brings satisfaction to pride, only as it denotes
prostration of soul. It is difficult, with these narra
tives before us, to think that Jesus took to himself
that precept which Peter gives to the elders, that
they be not lords over God’s heritage, but be subject
one to another, and clothed with humility, that they
may be ensamples to the flock. Indeed, unless we
utterly throw away all the narratives, it is hardly too
much to say, that this is the very opposite to the
portrait of Jesus. If we will accept the theory that
he was superhuman, we can justify his immeasurable
assumption of superiority; but the fact remains, that
in places, too many to reject, he puts himself forward
as “ lord over God’s heritage.”
Two classes of facts, presented in the narratives,
must be carefully separated. The former is the
general superiority asserted by Jesus for himself;
the latter, is the special assumption of Messianic dig
nity. On the latter, there is notoriously an irrecon
cilable diversity of the fourth gospel from the rest.
The writer of the fourth, unquestionably ascribing to
Jesus pre-existence with God in some mysterious
way, and sonship in a sense perfectly unique, repre
sents his Messiahship as notorious to John the
�io
The True Temptation of^Jesus.
Baptist, to Andrew and Philip, from the very begin
ning, says it was avowed by Nathanael (whoever
this was), and preached by Jesus to Nicodemus
and to the woman of Samaria. All this is in so
flat contradiction to the three first gospels, that
nothing historical can be made out of the account;
and in trying to attain a true picture of Jesus, I
necessarily set aside the fourth gospel as a mischie
vous romance.—Nevertheless, the element which I
call an assumption of general superiority, is as com
plete and persistent in the three first gospels as in
the fourth.
Keshub Chunder Sen entitles it “ a sublime
egotism” in Jesus, to say, “Come unto me, and I
will give you rest: take my yoke upon you, and
learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in spirit.”
Yet if Luther, or John Knox, or Wesley had said it,
we should adduce it in proof that he was eminently
lacking in that very grace,—lowliness of spirit,—for
which he was commending himself. But is this the
only egotism ascribed to him in Matthew ? Nay,
but in the celebrated beatitudes of the sermon on
the Mount, which some esteem the choice flower and
prime of the precepts of Jesus, he winds up with,
“ Blessed are ye when men shall speak evil against
you falsely for my sake.” He does not say “for
righteousness’ sake,” if the narrative can be trusted.
The discourse continues like itself to the end, for in
the close he says : “ Many shall say to me in that
day, Lord ! Lord ! have we not prophesied in thy
name, .... and then will I profess unto them, I
never knew you : depart from me, ye that work
iniquity.” This is, it may be said, a very energetic
way of declaring, that no pretence of following in his
train as a prophet could compensate for personal
iniquity. As such we may accept it: but it remains
clear, that he is claiming for himself a position
above the human; such as no beauty or truth of teach-
�The True Temptation of fesus.
11
ing could ever commend, as rightful from men to a
man, to the conscience of those reared in the schools
of modern science : while of course, if he claimed to
be higher than man, the first reasonable necessity,
and therefore his first duty, was to exhibit the
proofs of supernatural knowledge and authority.
Undoubtedly, the alternative lies open of disbelieving
the Evangelist. It may be urged, that the text
represents Jesus as also saying that in his name
they will claim to have cast out devils and done
many wonderful works; but that this is an exaggera
tion belonging to a later time, and so therefore
may the pretensions be, with which it is coupled.
Well; so be it: let us then look further.
According to Matt. ix. 6, Jesus claimed power
to forgive sin ; he brought on himself rebuke for it,
but proceeded to justify himself by working a miracle.
Whence did his disciples get the idea of his advancing
such extravagances, if really he did not go farther
than his disciples James and John? Presently after,
he is represented as preaching that he is the bride
groom of the Church, in whose presence the disciples
cannot mourn, and therefore ought not to fast; but
that when he is taken away, then they will fast.
How very peculiar and strange a sentiment to invent
for him, if it was not uttered ! Does it not rather
seem to have the stamp of individualism and truth,
thoroughly as it is in harmony with the tales of his
rejoicing to see men and women kneel before him ?
Next when Jesus sends out twelve disciples to say,
“ The kingdom of heaven is at hand,” he is repre
sented to assert, that it shall be more tolerable for
Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than
for the house or city which has not received his
messenger. Surely, if any one were now to knock
at our house door with such a formula of words, and
on the strength of it expect to be accepted with the
honours of a prophet, only the weak-minded would
�12
The True Temptation of Jesus.
give him pleasant reception. Yet no ground what
ever appears for believing that there was anything
•to accredit such messengers then, any more than now :
certainly nothing more appears in the narrative,
which quite consistently everywhere holds, that
Jesus regarded the non-reception of his messengers as
a super-eminent guilt, merely because it was he who
sent them.
When it is added, “ ye shall be hated of all men
for my name's sake," we are perhaps justified in
esteeming that prediction as an after-invention of
popular credulity. But in the same discourse (Matt,
x. 23) we alight for the first time on the remarkable
phrase, “ The Son of Man,” afterwards indisputably
applied by Jesus to himself. “ Ye shall not have
gone over the cities of Israel, till the Son of Man
he come.” No one but Jesus himself ever calls him
the Son of Man. Whatever he then meant, the
book puts into his mouth yet more of sublime
•egotism. “Whosoever shall confess me before men,”
x(says he), “ him will I confess before my Father which
is in heaven : but whosoever shall deny me before
men, him will I also deny before my Father which is
heaven. He that loseth his life for my sake shall
find it. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he
that receiveth me, receiveth Him that sent me.”
Certainly, when we begin to pare down these utter
ances, and try to reduce them to something that
would not be highly offensive in James or Paul, we
seem in danger of cutting away so much that is
characteristic, as to impair all confidence in what
remains. But unless we are bound to reject the
pervading colour of the narrative, I feel it not too
much to say, that in a mere man, the self-exaltation
approaches to impiety. What can it concern any
of us, that his brother-man should “deny him” before
our common Father? How suddenly would the
honour which we felt for a preacher be turned into
�The True Temptation of fesus.
13
grief and disappointment, or even indignation, if
we heard him to say, “ Blessed is he, whoever shall
not be offended in me!” He would fall in our
esteem, from the highest pinnacle to a very low
place, nor could any pretence of “ sublime egotism ”
save him.
In the same chapter in which the last words occur
(Matt, xi.) the Evangelist goes on into language not
dissimilar to that of the fourth gospel. “ All things
are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man
knoweth the Son but the Father: neither knoweth
any man the Father save the Son; and he to whom
soever the Son will reveal him.” When it is
considered that, although the nucleus of this gospel
probably existed before the first century was ended,
we have absolutely no guarantee that the text was
finally settled, as we now have it, much before the
time of Irenaeus, toward the close of the second
century; no one has a right to be very confident that
this passage, so strongly smacking of the doctrines
which won ascendancy in that century, was not intro
duced at a later time. Perhaps the more reasonable
course here, is to strike out verse 27, (about the Son
and the Father) as foisted upon Jesus by a later
generation. What then shall be said of the words
which follow, already quoted, “ Come unto me, take
my yoke on you, and I will give you rest?” I can
accept them, if he is God, or a pre-existing Mighty
Spirit. I cannot accept them if he was only man : I
then do not entitle them sublime at all, but some
thing else.
Something or other to the same effect is for ever
cropping up in this narrative of Matthew, which I
purposely take as giving a more human representation
of Jesus than Luke or J ohn. He is presently reported
to say (Matt. xii. 6), “ In this place is one greater
than the temple............... the Son of Man is Lord even
of the Sabbath day.” Unless his words have been
�14
The True Temptation of fesus.
monstrously distorted, he intended to assert that he
was himself the Son of Man spoken of by Daniel the
Prophet, that he was personally greater than the
temple, and was Lord even of the Sabbath-day.
Will any one say, that Jesus merely claimed the
right possessed by every man to interpret the law of
the Sabbath by the dictates of good sense, and that
he regarded every pious man as greater than a temple
built of stone; and that the egotistic form of his
utterance was an accident ? In that case it certainly
was a highly unfortunate accident, and we may add, an
accident often repeated, which generated in his dis
ciples a veneration for him too great for humanity.
But accident so systematic is surely no accident at
all. If a good man who makes no pretensions is
worshipped as a god after his death, he is guiltless :
but if a man be worshipped as a god, who has
made enormous personal pretensions,—and if a
decisive weight in the argument for worshipping
him is, that he has left us no choice between
worship and reprobation, can one who regards
the superhuman claims untenable, doubt that self
exaltation and monstrous vanity was a deplorable
foible in the prophet ? I find only two ways of
avoiding the disagreeable inference : (1), by the
theory of Paul, or some higher theory; (2.) by so
rejecting all our accounts of his doctrine and miracles
alike as untrustworthy, that nothing is left us to
trust at all, nothing on which a faithful picture of
Jesus can be founded.
From beginning to end the narrative has but one
colour as regards the self-exaltation of Jesus. Matt,
xii., “Behold! a greater than Solomon is here.”
Matt, xiii., “ Many prophets and righteous men have
desired to see the things which ye see, and hear the
things which ye hear. Blessed are your eyes, for
they see; and your ears, for they hear.” And what
was this so precious instruction ? the Parable of the
�The True Temptation of'Jesus.
15
Sower ! Surely no sober-minded person can esteem
this so highly above all the teaching of Hebrew
sages.
But I pass to a new topic in the sixteenth chapter
of Matthew,—the anger of Jesus, when he is asked
for a sign from heaven. He replies by calling the
persons who asked him hypocrites, when evidently,
according to the notions of that age and nation, it
was a most reasonable and proper request. In fact,
the narratives elsewhere represent him as giving
them miraculous signs, which are signs from heaven,
in abundance; insomuch that, if he had been repre
sented as here appealing to these signs, and alleging
that these very persons had already witnessed them
plentifully, his imputation of hypocrisy might have
seemed natural. But that is not his line of argument.
He says : “ A wicked, and adulterous generation seeketh
after a sign,” as though the desire itself were wicked
ness, “ and there shall no sign be given unto it, but
the sign of the prophet Jonas.” And he left them
and departed. Such words refuse a sign not to the
individual only, but to the generation. Are we then
to believe that he consistently repudiated all pretence
of working miracle ? that he esteemed the desire of
seeing a miracle wrought, in confirmation of his pre
eminent claims, to be such a fatuous absurdity, that
he had a right to heap contumelious epithets on the
head of any one who asked for it ? In favour of
this opinion, appeal may be made to the epistles of
Paul, who does not betray any knowledge whatever
that Jesus had wrought miracles. Let us tentatively
adopt this view. Then, first, what a heap of gross
misrepresentation is put before us in all four narratives
if Jesus not only never affected to work miracles,
but even vehemently flouted the idea itself and
rebuked those who desired it. Next, it will follow
that no justification of his high pretensions was
even attempted by him, and therefore no denuncia-
�16
The True Temptation of Jesus.
tion of men for neglect of him was reasonable. It
follows that those resolved to justify him must cut
out all his denunciations likewise. Who will write
for us an expurgated gospel, to let us know what
was the true Jesus ? Who will convince us, that
a history thus garbled can ever be truly recovered,
or deserves our intent study ?
In the same chapter of Matthew (the sixteenth)
the momentous question is proposed to his disciples,
“ Whom say ye that I am ']'” According to the
narrative, he first gave them the hint, what to reply,
by a leading question, “ Whom do men say that I, the
Son of Man, am ? ” but perhaps that is only a stupid
exaggeration of the narrator, who did not see what
it would imply. Let us then drop this portion of the
words.
He feels his way cautiously with the
disciples, and sounds them. Simon Peter replies,
“ Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Living God.”
Again I ask, Is this narrative grossly and delusively
false ? or may we trust a vague outline ? According
to it, Jesus is lifted by the reply into a most exalted
state, “ Blessed art thou, Simon son of Jonas,” says
he, ££ for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee, but my Father which is in heaven............... I
will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven*
and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be
bound in heaven, .... &c.” After this outburst,
what is it that we read as a consequence ? “ Then
charged he his disciples that they should tell no man
that he was Jesus the Christ.”
It seems utterly irrational and unworthy alike of
* Any one who doubts whether Jesus ever uttered such
words, may fortify the doubt by opining that the words
have got into the gospel from Rev. iii. 7, where nevertheless
Jesus, so far from giving the “power of the keys ” to any
apostle, retains the power strictly in his own hand. The
words in Rev. iii. 7, are borrowed from Isaiah xxii. 22,
which have no reference to Messiah at all, according to any
scientific interpretation,
�The True Temptation of fetus.
17
the most High God and of his specially anointed
Prophet (if one special Prophet was indeed so
promised), that Messiah should come into his
nation,—should expect subjection of mind from all
around,—should haughtily evade, instead of enlight
ening, those who mildly inquired into his claims to
authority; finally, should sedulously preserve his
incognito, and forbid his disciples to tell that he was
Messiah. Men may be either convinced or com
manded. To convince them you must kindly and can
didly answer their difficulties, and allow them to argue
against you; you must meet their questions as plainly
and honestly as possible, not browbeat or threaten
the interrogators, nor marvel over their unbelief and
stupidity. You must descend in the argument on
to a perfect level with the man whom you desire to
convince, and entirely lay aside all airs of authority,
even if you have authority. That is one course of
proceeding; but it is the very opposite of that
imputed to Jesus. But if men are to be commanded,
if submission is to be required of them, you must
make some display of power.* In that case you
seek to convince them, not that a precept is wise, or
a doctrine is true, but that you, its enunciator, have
a special right of dictation, drawing after it in the
hearer a special duty of submission. Of course, those
with whom the idea of miracles is inadmissible, do not
ask for signs from heaven; not the lessmustthey justify
the countrymen of Jesus in requiring from him some
credentials, when he claimed submission and used a
dictatorial tone. If the nation believed miracles to
be the marks of Messiah, and was in error, it
* Men of science appeal to power as an argument why
they should be believed, when want of leisure or talents
forbid the mastering of their arguments : thus Astronomers
appeal to their fore-knowledge of eclipses, and their power of
finding the longitude by their tables ; Electricians appeal to
the telegraph, and so on.
�18
The True Temptation of fesus.
belonged to Messiah to unteach them the error,
and, as one aware of their folly, to take precautions
lest miracles be imputed to him. Surely it was
quite unjustifiable, to require submission from Priests
and Pharisees, yet exhibit to them no credentials what
ever of the mighty function with which he was
invested. If words dropping from the mouth of
Messiah were divine commands, which it was impious
to dispute, nothing could supersede the public an
nunciation of his office, and the display of his
credentials, whatever they might be. No evasions
are here endurable, on the ground of the political
danger to be incurred, or the propriety of giving
insufficient proof in order to try people’s “ faith.”
To say that political danger forbade, is to say that
God sent Messiah insufficiently prepared for his work,
and afraid to assume His functions publicly. As to
trying “ faith ” by insufficient proof, nothing can be
less rightful or more pernicious. If the proof ad
duced be of the right kind and appropriate, it cannot
be excessive, but may be defective; and if defective,
it is a cruel trap, as if designed to lead honesty astray.
The only plausibility in this notion rises from con
fusion of truths which we ought to see by light from
within, with truths which can only be established
from without. No man can know by his inward
faculties that a Messiah is promised from heaven,
nor what will be the external marks of Messiah.
False Messiahs had already come. To accept lightly
any one as Messiah was the height of imprudence, and
certainly could not be commended as pious. Under
such circumstances, to dissemble Messiahship, and
work upon susceptible minds by giving them evidence
necessarily imperfect, was conduct rather to be
imputed to a devil, than to a prophet from God, if
done with serious intent. Those who defend it,
plead that the evidence was moral, and did not need
external proofs. If so, on the one hand full freedom
�The True Temptation of'Jesus.
19
of investigation was needed, not authority and brow
heating ; on the other, this alleges external proof to
be worse than superfluous,—to be in fact misleading;
so that to plead for its “ insufficiency” as a needful
trial of faith is a gross error. If external evidence
was wholly inappropriate, the producing of that
which you concede to be insufficient does but tend to
confuse ■ and mislead the simple-hearted, and cause
unbelief in the strong-headed. But if external evi
dence is admissible and appropriate at all for faith
to rest upon, then it ought to be in quantity and
quality sufficient to make the faith reasonable and
firm. If only internal light is to the purpose of
faith, and external evidence was not wanted for
Messiah, then neither was an authoritative Messiah
wanted at all; that is, a teacher to whom we should
submit without conviction; then it was right to
claim that Messiah would convince by argument and
reply to questions; would invite question or opposi
tion, not dictate and threaten; then we have to
sweep away the greater part of the four Gospels as a
false representation of Messiah. Whatever else may
have been true, one thing is certainly false;—that
God sent a special messenger to teach authoritatively,
and that the messenger thus sent forbade his disciples
to publish his character and claims.
From narratives so disfigured by false representa
tion, as every one is obliged to confess them, who
does not believe the miracles, and seeks to defend
Jesus by remoulding the accounts of Him ; how can
any one be blamed for despairing to arrive at accurate
and sound knowledge concerning his character and
teaching? What right has any one to expect to
recover lost history, or to think worse of his brother
if he regard the effort to be waste time ? Yet if I
were to say, I seem to myself to know nothing of Jesus,
I should speak untruly; for in the midst of the obscurity
and the inconsistencies of the narratives, there are
�20
’The True Temptation of Jesus.
some things unvarying, many things very hard to in
vent, and others unlikely to be invented, yet easily
admitting explanation, if we reason about Jesus as
we do about every other public teacher or reformer.
The details of doctrine are often untrustworthy, but
the current, the broad tendencies, the style and tone
of the teacher, seem to have made too strong an
impression to be lost, though round them has been
gathered a plentiful accretion of mistake and fable.
In outline we must say that the first peculiarity of the
preacher was, that he did not comment upon the law
and prophets, but spoke dictatorially, dogmatically,
as with authority—a thing quite right and proper,
while only moral truth is taught, which makes appeal
to the conscience of the hearer. But the Jews,
accustomed like the modern English to nothing but
comment and deduction from a sacred book, were
apt to enquire of Jesus by what right he spoke so
confidently, and paid so little deference to the learned.
On one occasion he is said to have given a very fair
reply, to the effect that they had listened to the
preaching of John the Baptist, without asking his
authority: “If John might preach to you dogmati
cally, why may not 12 ” was the substance of that
argument. But it is clear that, numbers of honest
sincere Jews, impressed by the moral weight in these
preachings, had begun to inquire whether this was
not a renewal of divine prophecy, whether divine
prophets must not have some recognizable note of
their mission, other than the influence of their doc
trine on the human conscience; whether, in fine,
Jesus might not be the expected Messiah. This was
a very anxious question, especially since delusive
Messiahs had appeared; but it was a question that
Jews were sure to make, and the three narratives
before us, defective as they are, persuade me that it •
was made, both in private talk, and in direct interro
gation to Jesus.
Now if we accept to the full the traditional Jewish
�The True Temptation of fesus.
21
belief of what Messiah was to be, (which falls short
of the dignity ascribed to him by Christians),
it is incredible that after commencing his public
functions he should remain ignorant of his being
Messiah, or need confirmation from his disciples or
from others. But if Jesus had little trust in learned
Rabbis or traditional doctrine, he may have had a
very vague and imperfect belief as to what Messiah
was to be; and the idea that he himself was Messiah
may not have at all occurred to him, until after he
had experienced the zeal of the multitude, and was
aware that a rumour was gone abroad among the
people, that “ a great prophet was arisen,” and that
some said he was the Messiah. Can any one study
his character as that of a man, subject to all human
limitations, and not see, that the question, “ Am I
then possibly the Messiah ?” if at all entertained,
instantly became one of extreme interest and anxiety
to Jesus himself? Indeed from the day that it
fixed itself upon him for permanent rumination his
character could not but lose its simplicity. Pre
viously he thought only, What doctrine is true
morality ? What are the crying sins of the day 2
But now his own personality, his own possible
dignity, became matters of inquiry ; and the inquiry
was a Biblical one. He was brought hereby on to
the area of the learned commentator, who studies
ancient books to find out what has been promised and
predicted about a Messiah. An unlearned carpenter,
however strong and clear-minded while dealing with a
purely moral question, was liable to lose all his super
iority and be hurtfully entangled when entering into
literary interpretation. Wholly to get rid of tradi
tional notions was impossible, yet enough of distrust
would remain, to embarrass fixed belief and produce
vacillation. Nothing is then more natural, than
that the teacher should desire to know what was the
general opinion concerning him, should be pleased
when it confirmed his rising hopes, should be elated
�22
The True Temptation of fetus,
when Simon Peter declared him to be Messiah, and
should bless his faith, even if not with the extrava
gance of giving him the keys of the kingdom of
heaven; finally, should be displeased with himself
-and frightened at his own elation, and, in order to
repair his error, should charge his disciples to tell
no one that he was Messiah; not that he desired to
keep the nation in ignorance, but because he was
himself conscious of uncertainty. After this his
conduct could not be straightforward and simple.
Such is the only reasonable interpretation which
I have ever been able to see, of this perplexed and
perplexing narrative, which is not likely to have
grown out of nothing. Jesus came into a false
position from that day, and of necessity (as I think)
his whole character must have changed for the worse.
Thenceforth, the dogmatism which had been a mere
form of teaching, and had involved arrogance only
in appearance, changed into definite and systematic
personal assumption. It is not likely that he began it
so early, or ever carried it so far, as even the narrative
of Matthew pretends; for as a caricaturist exag
gerates every peculiarity of a face, making its promi
nences more prominent, so does tradition deal with
the popular hero. I pretend not to know how much
is exactly true; but it comes before me as certain
fact, that the true temptation of Jesus was the
whisper made to him, “ Are not you possibly the
Messiah ?” and by it the legendary devil overcame
him. That whisper has cost to Europe an infinite
waste of mind and toil, no end of religious wars,
cruelties, injustices, anathemas, controversies, without
bringing any sure advance of religious truth to man
kind. How much more convulsion of hearts and
entanglement of intellects, how much of violent
political upturnings are inevitable, before European
nations can now become able to learn that to think
freely is a duty, and that religion is spiritual and
rational, not magical and supernatural ?
�The following Pamphlets and Papers may befhad 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 Gd.
Science and Theology. By Richard Davies Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South Australia.
Piice 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. Price 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. Price 7d., post free.
The Difficulties and Discouragements which attend the Study of the Scriptures. By
the Right Rev. Francis Harb, D.D., formerly Lord Bishop of Chichester. Price 6d.
The Chronological Weakness of Prophetic Interpretation. By a Beneficed Clergy
man 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 Gd.
Errors, Discrepancies, and Contradictions of the Gospel Records, with special reference
to the irreconcilable Contradictions between the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel. Price is.
The Gospel of the Kingdom. By a Benbficed Clergyman of the Church of England.
Price 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. Newman. 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 Annotations 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 an© the Divine. By a Beneficed Clergyman of the Church of Eng
land. Price Is.
The Thirty-Nine Articles and the Creeds,—Their Sense and their Non-sense. By a
Country Parson. Parts I., II., III. Price 6d each part
A Reply to the Question, “What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot Rely on the
Bible ? ” By Professor F. W. Newman.
Another Reply to the Question, “ What have we got to Rely on, if we cannot rely on
the Bible ? ” By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price 6d.
�List of Publications—Continued.
The Utilization of the Church Establishment. By the Author of “The Pilgrim and the
Shrine,” “The Meaning of the Age,” &c. &c. Price 6d.
Modern Protestantism. By the Author of “The Philosophy of Necessity.’ Price 6d.
A Reply to the Question, “Apart from Supernatural Revelation, What is the Pros
pect of Man’s Living after Death? By Samuel Hinds, D.D., late Lord Bishop of
Norwich. Price 6d.
Tree and Serpent Worship. Price 6d.
A Review of a Pamphlet, entitled, “ The Present Dangersof the Church of England.”
By W. G. Clark, M.A., Vice-Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. Price 6d.
The Twelve Apostles. Price 6d.
The Bible for Man, not Man for the Bible. By a Country Vicar. Price 6d.
Is Death the end of all things for Man ? By a Parent and a Teacher. Price 6d.
On the Infidelity of Orthodoxy. By the Rev. Thomas Kirkman, M.A., F.R.S. In Two
Parts. Price 6d. each Part.
“The Finding of the Book.” By John Robertson, Coupar-Angus. Price 2s.
On Moral Evil. Price 6d.
The Claims of Christianity to the Character of a Divine Revelation, consideredBy W. Jevons. Price 6d.
The Unity of the Faith among all Nations. By a Padre of the Established Church.
Price 6d.
Clergymen made Scarce. A Letter to the Bishop of London, by a Presbyter. Price 6d
On the Efficacy of Opinion in Matters of Religion. By the Rev. W. R. Worthing
ton, M.A. Price Sixpence.
Sacred History as a Branch of Elementary Education. Part I. Its Influence on the
Intellect. Price Sixpence. Part II. Its Influence on the Development of the
Conscience. Price Sixpence.
On Religion. By a Former Elder in a Scotch Church. Price Sixpence.
The Nature and Origin of Evil. A Letter to a Friend, by Samuel Hinds, D,D., late
Lord Bishop of Norwich. Price Sixpence.
A. I. Conversations. Recorded by a Woman, for Women. Parts I. and II. Price 6d. each part
The Passion for Intellectual Freedom. By Edward Maitland. Price Sixpence.
Reason versus Authority. By W. 0. Carr Brook. Price 3d.
An appeal to the Preachers of all the Creeds. By Gamaliel Brown. Price 3d.
The Voysey Case. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d.
“ Realities.” By P. A. Taylor M.P.
The Beliefs of Unbelievers. By Rev. 0. B. Frothingham. Price 3d.
On the Causes of Atheism. By F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
The Bible; Is it “The Word of God?” By T. L. Strange, late Judge of the High Court
of Madras. Price 6d.
A Woman’s Letter. Price 3d.
An Episode in the History of Religious Liberty. By Rev. Charles Voysey. Price 6d.
Thirty-nine Questions on the Thirty-nine Articles. By Rev. J. Page Hopps. Price 3d.
Intellectual Liberty. By John Robertson. Price 6d.
The Spiritual Serfdom of the Laity. By Moncure D. Conway. Price 6d.
Theology of the Past and the Future. By M. Kalisch, Ph.D. Reprinted from Part I. of
his Commentary on Leviticus. Price Is.
The Divergence of Calvinism from Pauline Doctrines. By Professor F. W. Newman.
Price 3d.
The Doctrine of Immortality in its Bearing on Education. By Presbyter Anglicanus.
Price 6d.
The Judgment of the Committee of Council in the Case of Mr. Voysey. Some remarks
by J. D. La Touche, Vicar of Stokesay, Salop. Price 3d.
A Challenge to the Members of the Christian Evidence Society. By Thos. Scott.
The Dean of Canterbury on Science and Revelation. A Letter, by M. P. Price 6d.
The True Temptation of Jesus. By Professor F. W. Newman. Price 6d.
Friends to the cause of “ Free Inquiry and Free Expression” are earnestly requested to give
aid in the wide dissemination of these pamphlets.
�
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 true temptation of Jesus
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of Publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 22, [2] p. : ill. (port.) ; 18 cm
Notes: Part of Morris Miscellaneous Tracts 4. The portrait is a photo that has been cut out and pasted to the title page. Publisher's list on unnumbered pages at the end. Date of publication from British Library catalogue.
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
G4858
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br />This work (The true temptation of Jesus), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Christianity-Controversial Literature
Jesus Christ
Jesus Christ-Temptation
Morris Tracts