2
10
29
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/e05f74daba8074a25d1d54a88ee6372b.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=YbdtCAOGtagAujThWN55%7EAtjEhGJTgi%7EGyPvvY556OMIUcCPcoqCCe2e3pxGZKfRFqLuvrHE7u-HRn4N-pAToeKrTThs4qzcdQg-SUehyW81gZOc1uQ8M6TJb80Rjuon1cAxMCRamqcFZCYxTu7HvsCYWT-VLf-wDWFbhJEqSDyAZbwV3q5rIkyQZkQd4w8fOBHJetoqBYLXhGcokBL1OjQzFQWlduhqhgHOJvhhG3k1S3aT2RiSSs8klYvmAuyApAoH97NVXf%7E0vpEaBPSB1e3f547LE7SWdMQUSA9-n5q9c966omsQP9aGAB-SSXidwXU9-ctJZxK1U9I5OSIZpA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
493692d85326f07c2a0542e209785b92
PDF Text
Text
WHAT WAS CHRIST?
JL REPLY
TO
JOHN
STUART MILL.
BY
1
:
:
:
TWOPENCE,
PRICE
i
4
J
:
♦
♦
4
4
4
4
4
t
LONDON :
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1887.
�LONDON :
POINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. EOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�11
national secular society
WHAT WAS CHRIST?
Thebe are many passages in John Stuart Mill’s Three
Essays on Religion which the apologists of Christianity very
prudently ignore. Orthodoxy naturally shrinks from the descrip
tion of a God who could make a Hell as a “ dreadful idealisa
tion of wickedness.” Nor is it pleasant to read that “ Not even
on the most distorted and contracted theory of good which
ever was framed by religious or philosophical fanaticism, can the
government of nature be made to resemble the work of a being
at once good and omnipotent.”
But Christian lecturers are never tired of quoting the pane
gyric on their blessed Savior, which occurs in another part of
the same volume. They never mention the fact that the Essay
which contains this eulogium was not revised by the author for
publication, while the other two essays were finally prepared
for the press. It is enough for them that the passage is found
in a volume of Mill’s. Whether it harmonises with the rest of
the volume, or whether the author might have considerably
modified it-in revision, are questions with which they have no
concern. “ Here is Mill’s testimony to Christ,” they cry, “ and
we fling it like a bombshell into the Freethought camp.” We
propose to pick up this bombshell, to dissect and analyse it, and
to show that it is perfectly harmless.
Mill’s panegyric on Christ, as Professor Newman says, “ caused
surprise.”* Professor Bain, who was one of Mill’s most
intimate friends, and has written his biography,f uses the very
same expression. The whole of the Essay on Theism “was a
surprise to his friends,” not for its attacks on orthodoxy, but for
its concessions to “ modern sentimental Theism.” Professor
Bain observes that these concessions have been made the most
of, “ and, as is usual in such cases, the inch has been stretched
to an ell.” Speaking with all the authority of his position,
Professor Bain adds that the “ fact remains that in everything
* “ Christianity in its Cradle,” p. 57.
f “ John Stuart Mill: A Criticism; with Personal Recollections.”
�(4 )
characteristic of the creed of Christendom, he was a thorough
going negationist.
He admitted neither its truth nor its
utility.”
How, then, did Mill come to write those passages of his
Three Essays which caused such surprise to his intimate friends ?
The answer is simple. “ Who is the woman ? ” asked Talley
rand, when two friends wished him to settle a dispute.
There
was a woman in Mill’s case.
Mrs. Taylor, afterwards his wife,
and the object of his adoring love, disturbed his judgment in
life and perverted it in death. He buried her at Avignon, and
resided near her grave until he could lie beside her in the eternal
sleep. No doubt the long vigil at his wife’s tomb shows the
depth of his love, but it necessarily tended to make his brain the
victim of his heart. There can be no worse offence against the
laws of logic than to argue from our feelings; and when Mill
began to talk about “ indulging the hope ” of immortality, he
had set his feet, however hesitatingly, on the high road of senti
mentalism and superstition. How different was his attitude in
the vigor of manhood, when his intellect was unclouded by
personal sorrow ! In closing his splendid Essay on fhe Utility
of Religion, he wrote :
“ It seems to me not only possible, but probable, that in a higher, and,
above all, a happier condition of human life, not annihilation, but immor
tality, may be the burdensome idea; and that human nature, though
pleased with the present, and by no means impatient to quit it, would find
comfort and not sadness in the thought that it is not chained through
eternity to a conscious existence which it cannot be assured that it will
always wish to preserve.”
How great is the range of egoism, even with the best of us!
Writing before his own great loss, Mill sees no argument for
immortality in the yearning of bereaved hearts for reunion with
the beloved dead ; but when- he himself craves “ the touch of a
vanished hand and the sound of a voice that is still,” he perceives
room for hope. His own passion of grief lights a beacon in the
darkness, which his sympathy with the grief of others had never
kindled.
We can easily understand how Mill’s profound love for his
wife affected his intellect after her death, when we see how it
deluded him while she lived. In his Autobiography he describes
her as a beauty and a wit. Mr. Maccall says that she was 'not
brilliant in conversation, and decidedly plain-looking; and the
same objection appears to be hinted by Professor Bain. Carlyle
refers to her several times in his Reminiscences, always as a light
gossamery creature.
It is notorious that the Grotes regarded
�( 5 )
Mill’s attachment to her as an infatuation. And certainly he
did a great deal to justify their opinion. In the dedication of
his Essay on Liberty, he refers to her “ great thoughts and noble
feelings,” and her “ all but unrivalled wisdom.
This eulogium
a little astonished those who had read her Essay in the West
minster Review, reprinted by Mill in his Dissertations and Dis
cussions, which revealed no very wonderful ability, and assuredly
did not place her beside Harriet Martineau or George Eliot.
But in his Autobiography this panegyric was completely eclipsed.
Mill informs the world in that volume that her mind “included
Carlyle’s and infinitely more,” and that in comparison with her
Shelley was but a child. Apparently seeing, however, that
sceptics might inquire why a woman of such profound and
original genius did not leave some memorable work, Mill con
fidingly tells us that she was content to inspire other minds
rather than express herself through the channels of literature.
In other words, she played second fiddle in preference to first,
which is exactly what men and women of original genius will
never do. But whom did she inspire ? We know of none but
Mill, and on examining his works chronologically we find that
all his greatest books were composed before he fell under her
influence. Mr. Gladstone explains Mill’s “ ludicrous estimate of
his wife’s powers,” by saying that she was a quick receptive
woman, who gave him back the echo of: his own thoughts, which
he took for the independent oracles of truth.
Over the tomb of this idolised wife, whom his fancy clothed
with fictitious or exaggerated attributes, Mill wrote his Essay on
Theism. Miss Helen Taylor says it shows “the carefullybalanced results of the deliberations of a life-time.” But she
allows that—
“ On the other hand, there had not been time for it to undergo the
revision to which from time to time he subjected most of his writings
before making them public. Not only, therefore, is the style less polished
than of any other of his published works, but even the matter itself, at
least in the exact shape it here assumes, has nevei' undergone the
repeated examination which it certainly would have passed through
before he would himself have given it to the world.”
If Mill had lived, he would perhaps have made many improve
ments and excisions in this unfortunate essay. As it stands it is
singularly feeble in comparison with the two former Essays. He
“hopes” for immortality, and “regrets to say” that the Design
Argument is not inexpugnable, as though this were the language
of a philosopher or a logician. After writing several pages on
the “Marks of Design in Nature,” he passingly notices the
�( 6 )
Darwinian Theory and admits that, if established, it “would
greatly attenuate the evidence ” for Creation. Yet he drops
this great hypothesis in the next paragraph, and talks about
“ the large balance of probability in favor of creation by intel
ligence ” in the present state of our knowledge. What he meant
was, in the present state of our ignorance. Mill neither under
stood nor felt the force of Darwinism. We shall find, in
examining his panegyric on Christ, that he understood that
subject just as little, and that, where his knowledge did apply,
he flatly contradicted what he had written before.
Let us now ascertain what were Mill’s qualifications for the
task of estimating the teachings and personality of Christ. He
had a subtle logical mind, strong though restricted sympathies,
a singular power of mastering an opponent’s case, and remark
able candor in stating it. But his intellect was of the purely
speculative order. He possessed a “ rich storage of principles,
doctrines, generalities of every degree, over several wide depart
ments of knowledge,” as Professor Bain says ; but he “ had not
much memory for detail of any kind,” although “ by express
study and frequent reference he had amassed a store of facts
bearing on political or sociological doctrines.” In short, “ he
had an intellect for the abstract and the logical out of all pro
portion to his hold of the concrete and the poetical.” He was
cut out for a metaphysician, a political speculator and a
sociologist. But he never could have become an historian or a
man of letters. He had little sense of style, no faculty of
literary criticism, a dislike of picturesque expression, a scanty
knowledge of human nature, and an extremely feeble imagina
tion. He was a great philosopher, but perhaps less an artist
than any other thinker of the same eminence that ever lived.
Now the faculties required in dealing with the origin of
Christianity, including the character of its founder, are obviously
those of the literary critic and the historian, in which Mill was
deficient. He was, therefore, not equipped by nature for the
task.
Had he even the necessary knowledge ? Certainly not.
There is not the slightest evidence that he had studied the
relation of Christianity to previous systems, the growth of its
literature, the formation of its canon, and the development of
its ethics and its dogmas. He probably knew next to nothing
of the oriental religions, and was only acquainted with the name
of Buddhism. Nay, if we may trust Professor Bain (his friend,
his biographer, and his eulogist), he knew very little of Chris-
�( 7 )
inanity itself. He “ searcely ever read a theological book,” and
he only knew “ the main positions of theology from our general
literature.” Just when Mill’s Three Essays on Eehgwn ap
peared, Strauss’s Old Faith and the New was published m
England, and Professor Bain justly remarks that Anyone
reading it would, I think, be struck with its immense superiority
to Mill’s work, in all but the logic and metaphysics. Strauss
speaks like a man thoroughly, at home with his subject.
Mill
does indeed say, in his Autobiography, that Ins. father made
him, at a very early age, “a reader of ecclesiastical history ;
but he does not tell us that he continued so in his after lite, and
even if he did, ecclesiastical, history begins just where the
problem of the origin of Christianity ends.
.
Another thing must be said. Professor Bain states, and we
can well believe him, that Mill was “ not even well read, m the
sceptics that preceded him.” He was really ignorant on both
sides of the controversy. His idea of Christ was formed from
a selection of the best things in the New Testament. A most
uncritical process, and in fact an impossible one ; for the New
Testament is not history, but an arbitrary selection from a
mass of early Christian tracts, of uncertain authorship, different
dates, and various value. The literature on this subject, even
from the pens of eminent writers, is vast enough to show, its
immense complication. Unless it is read m a cluld-like spirit
which in grown men and women is childish, the New. Testament
needs to be explained ; and when the process has fairly begun,
you find all the familiar features shifting like the pieces in. a
kaleidoscope, until at last they reassume an organic, but a dif
ferent, form and color. Twenty Christs may be elicited from
the New Testament as it stands. Mill deduced one, but the
nineteen others are just as valid.
.
Strictly speaking, our task is completed. It would logically
suffice to say that Mill’s panegyric on Christ is a mere piece of
fancy. Like other men of genius, he had his special aptitudes
and special knowledge, and his authority only extends as far as
they carry him. Mr. Swinburne’s opinion of Newton is of no
particular importance, and Newton’s famous ineptitude about
Paradise Lost in no way affects our estimate of Milton.
Let us go further, however, and examine Mill’s panegyric on
Christ in detail. In justice to him, as well as to the subject, it
should be quoted in full:
“Above all, the most valuable part of the effect on the character
which Christianity has produced by .holding up m a Divine Person a
�ÉTotíe ufnbpH±nCe Td a m°del f01’ÍmÍtatÍOn’ bailable even to the
absolute unbellever and can never more be lost to humanity. For
is Christ, lather than God, whom Christianity has held up to
believers as the pattern of perfection for humanity.
It is the God
ideahsede’hTs°teithan
Gfd °/ tbe JeWS or °f Nature, who being
AndhXbdfh ^ken so,great and salutary a hold on the modern mind,
is stiH íeft T 6lS-e mac be tak<3n aWay fr°m US by rational criticism, Christ
hL fnii
’ Umq?K figUre’ n0t more unlike a11 his precursors than 4»
Ins followers even those who had the direct benefit of his personal teachhiSoric« «nA th
tOi Say tha\Ohrist as exhibited in the Gospels is not
sunerad/lía h
7® ^°W n?tbow much of what is admirable has been
suffice« Í
7 t tradition of his followers. The tradition of followers
miSelf?
any number °f marvels’ and may have inserted all the
dSS™hlCh
.rePutedt°have wrought. But who among his
ascGbld + among their proselytes was capable of inventing the sayings
SV i,eT.01; Of lma«lnin& the life and character revealed in the
p ? /
ertamly not the fishermen of Galilee; as certainly not St.
Sil í J th® cbara<^®rand idiosyncracies were of a totally different sort:
fb?f th the TTly1 9bristlan writers m whom nothing is more evident than '
fXiS F? wbicb.was m timm was all derived, as they always professed that it was derived, from a higher source. What could be added
XJ^w rd?y a dlsclPle we may see in the mystical parts of the
gospel of St John, matter imported from Philo and the Alexandrian
himSí t
mt° the mouth of the Savior in long speeches about
tffi?™h S as?be/tber Gospels contain not the slightest vestige of,
though pretended to have been delivered on occasions of the deepest
interest and when his principal followers were all present; most promt,
nently at the last supper. The East was full of men who could have
stolen any quantity of this poor stuff, as the multitudinous Oriental sects
of Gnostics afterwards did. But about the life and sayings of Jesus there •
13vVa-?P of Per®onal originaiity combined with profundity of insight,
which if we abandon the idle expectation of finding scientific precision
wheie something very different was aimed at, must place the Prophet of
Nazareth, even m the estimation of those who have no belief in his
inspiration, m the very first rank of the men of sublime genius of whom
our species can boast. When this pre-eminent genius is combined with
the qualities of probably the greatest moral reformer, and martyr to that
mission, who ever existed upon earth, religion cannot be said to have
made a bad choice in pitching on this man as the ideal representative
ana guide of humanity; nor even now, would it be easy, even for ail un•
a better translation of the rule of virtue from the abstract
into the concrete, than to endeavor so to live that Christ would approve
our life.
Our first complaint is that the whole passage is too vague and
rhetorical. What is the meaning of “ the absolute unbeliever ”
m the first sentence ? If it means a person who rejects all the
pretensions of Christ, the sentence is absurd. If it means a
person who rejects his divinity, it is practically untrue ; for. as a
matter of fact, those who have thought themselves out of Chris
tianity (which Mill did not, as he was never in it) very seldom
do take Christ as “ a standard of excellence and a model for
�(9)
imitation,” much less as “ the pattern of perfection for
humanity.” When the supernatural glamor is dispelled, we
see that Christ is no example whatever. He is simply a
preacher, and his personal conduct fails to illustrate a single
public or private virtue, or assist us in any of our practical diffi
culties as husbands, fathers, sons, or citizens. Mill has himself
shown that even Christians do not attempt to imitate their
Savior ; and we are puzzled to understand how he could speak
of Christ’s having “ taken so great and salutary hold on the
modern mind ” after telling us, in his Essay on Liberty, that he
has done nothing of the kind. He there says:
“ By Christianity, I here mean what is acconnted such by all churches
and sects, the maxims and precepts contained in the New Testament.
These are considered sacred, and accepted as laws by all professing Chris
tians. Yet it is scarcely too much to say that not one Christian in a
thousand guides or tests his individual conduct by reference to those
laws. . . . Whenever conduct is concerned, they look round for Mr. A
and B to direct them how far to go in obeying Christ.”
Had Mill forgotten this passage when he wrote the Essay on
Theism, or had Christendom changed in the interval ? Scarcely
the latter. John Bright has justly said that the lower classes
in England care as little for the dogmas of Christianity as the
upper classes care about its practice.
Until Christians follow their Savior’s teachings, it is idle to
expect unbelievers to do so. Yet it is perhaps as well they do
not, for there are many things recorded in the Gospels which are
far from redounding to his credit. It is a great pity that Mill,
before eulogising Christ, could not read the chapter on “Jesus
of Nazareth ” in Professor Newman’s last work. Why did Jesus
consort with Publicans (or Roman tax-gatherers), rhe very sight
of whom was hateful to every patriotic Jew ? .Why did he herd
with Sinners, who so far despised ceremony as to dip in the dish
with dirty fingers ? Why did he avoid all who were able to
criticise him ? Why did he exclaim, “Ye hypocrites, why put
ye me to proof?” when the Jews sought to test his claims, and
to act on his own advice to “ Beware of false prophets ” ? Why
did he rudely repel educated inquirers, and then solemnly thank
God that “ he had hidden these things from the wise and pru
dent, and revealed them unto babes ” ? Why did he denounce
inhabitants of cities he could not convince, and prophesy that
they would fare worse in the Day of Judgment than the filthy
inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah ? Why did he assail his
religious rivals with invectives which, as Professor Newman
�( 10 )
says, “ outdo Tacitus and Suetonius in malignity,, and seem to
convict themselves of falsehood and bitter slander ?” Why, in
short, did he so constantly display the vanity and passion of a
spoilt child ? Surely these are not characteristics we should
emulate, but glaring blots in a “ pattern of perfection.” When
the arrogance of Christ is countenanced by a writer like Mill,
these defects must be insisted on. Professor Newman rightly
says that
“ If honor were claimed for Jesus as for Socrates, for Seneca, for Hillel,
for Epictetus, we might apologise for his weak points as either incident
to his era and country or to human nature itself—weakness to be forgiven
and forgotten. But the unremitting assumption of super-human wisdom,
not only made for him by the moderns, but breathing through every
utterance attributed to him, changes the whole scene, and ought to
change our treatment of it. Unless his prodigious claim of divine
superiority is made good in fact, it betrays an arrogance difficult to
excuse, eminently mischievous and eminently ignominious.”
But this prodigious claim cannot be made good. As Pro
fessor Newman says : “It is hard to point to anything in the
teaching of Jesus at once new to Hebrew and Greek sages, and
likewise in general estimate true.” The same view was ex
pressed by Buckle, with more vigor if less urbanity. “ Whoever,”
he said, “ asserts that Christianity revealed to the world truths
with which it was previously unacquainted, is guilty either of
gross ignorance or of wilful fraud.”
Mill had himself, in the Essay on Liberty, shown the evil of
taking Christ, or any other man, as “the ideal representative
and guide of humanity.” He there charged Christianity with
possessing a negative rather than a positive ideal; abstinence
from evil rather than energetic pursuit of good constituting its
essence, in which “ thou shalt not ” unduly predominated over
“ thou shalt.” He accused it of making an idol of asceticism,
of holding out “ the hope of heaven and the threat of hell as
the appointed and appropriate motives to a virtuous life, and
of thus “ giving to human morality an essentially selfish
character.” And he added that—
“ What little recognition the idea of obligation to the public obtains in
modern morality, is derived from Greek and Roman sources, not fiom
Christian; as, even in the morality of private life, whatever exists of
magnanimity, high-mindedness, personal dignity, even the sense of honor,
is derived from the purely human, not the religious, part of our educa
tion, and never could have grown out of a standard of ethics in which the
only worth, professedly recognised, is that of obedience.”
Mill does indeed throw a sop to orthodoxy by allowing that
Christ and Christianity are different things ; but he is obliged
�(11)
to add that the Founder of Christianity failed to provide for
“ many essential elements of the highest morality.” He main
tains that “ other ethics than any which can be evolved from
exclusively Christian sources must exist side by side with
Christian ethics to produce the moral regeneration of mankind.”
And he deprecates ihe policy of “formingthe mind and feelings
on an exclusively religious type.” Surely these arguments are
quite inconsistent with Mill’s later notion of taking Christ as our
ideal, and living so that he would approve our life.
Besides, as Professor Bain points out, the morality of Christ
belongs to this exclusively religious type. Its sanctions are all
religious, and if religion is dispensed with they “ must lose their
suitability to human life.” Professor Bain very justly observes
that “the best guidance, under such altered circumstances,
would be that furnished by the wisest of purely secular
teachers.”
That Christ was “ probably the greatest moral reformer ”
that ever lived is a statement easy to make and difficult to
prove. When Mill, in the Essay on Liberty, twits the Chris
tians with professing doctrines they never practise, he furnishes
■a catalogue of the duties they neglect.
“ All Christians believe that the blessed are the poor and humble, and
those who are ill-used by the world ; that it is easier for a camel to pass
through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of
heaven; that they should judge not lest they should be judged; that
they should swear not at all; that they should love their neighbors as
themselves ; that if one take their cloak, they should give him their coat
also ; that they should take no thought for the morrow; that if they
would be perfect they should sell all they have and give it to the poor.”
Surely Mill was aware that all these absurd and impracticable
maxims were taught by Christ. Hgw, then, except on the
theory we have advanced, could he call him the greatest moral
reformer in history ?
The “rational criticism ” by means of which Mill obtains
the “ unique figure ” of Christ is a purely arbitrary process.
George Eliot, who knew the subject far better, said in one
of. her letters that the materials for any biography of Jesus
do not exist.
The Unitarians have tried Mill’s process
with small success ; and, as Professoi’ Bain maliciously observes,
“ It would seem in this, as in other parts of religion, that what
the rationalist disapproves of most the multitude likes best.”
Professor Bain’s remarks on Mill’s construction of his “ unique
figure ” from the Gospels are so pertinent and happy that we
venture to give them in full:
�(12)
“ We are, of course, at liberty to dissent from the prevailing view,
which makes Christ a divine person. But to reduce a Deity to the human
level, to rank him simply as a great man, and to hold ideal intercourse
with him in that capacity is, to say the least of it, an incongruity. His
torians and moralists have been accustomed to treat with condemnation
those monarchs that, after being dethroned, have accepted in full the
position of subjects. Either to die, or else to withdraw into dignified isola
tion, has been accounted the only fitting termination to the loss of royal
power. So, a Deity dethroned should retire altogether from playing a
part in human affairs, and remain simply as an historic name.”
Mill finds in Christ “ sublime genius ” and “ profundity of
insight.” Surely it did not require any very sublime genius to
teach those peculiar doctrines which Mill catalogued for back
sliding Christians, nor any very great profundity of insight to
see that none but paupers and lunatics could evei’ practise them.
Many of the best sayings ascribed to Jesus were the common
possession of the East before his birth ; but many of the worst
seem more his own. “ Leave all and follow me ” is a vain and
foolish command. “ Give to everyone that asketh ” is an excel
lent rule for pauperising society. “ That industry is a human
duty,” says Professor Newman, “ cannot be gathered from his
doctrine: how could it, when he kept twelve religious men
dicants around him ?” “ Resist not evil ” is a premium on
tyranny. “ Blessed be ye poor ” and “• Woe unto you rich ” are
the exclamations of a vulgar demagogue, a cunning agent of
privilege, or an irresponsible maniac. “ By shovelling away
wealth,” says Professor Newman, “ we are to buy treasures in
heaven. Unless our narrators belie him, Jesus never warns
hearers that to give without a heart of charity does not prepare
a soul for heaven nor ‘ earn salvation ’; and that ¿elfish pre
speculation turns virtue into despicable marketing. To forgive
that we may be forgiven, to avoid judging lest we be judged, to
do good that we may get extrinsic reward, to affect humility
that we may be promoted, to lose life that we may gain it with
advantage, are precepts not needing a lofty prophet.” - It is also
from the words of Christ alone, according to the New Testa
ment, that the doctrine of Eternal Punishment can be estab
lished ; and he is responsible for the intellectual crime of
identifying Credulity with Faith, which has been a fatal rotten
ness at the very core of Christianity.
As for the “personal originality” of Mill’s “ unique figure,
**
he might be safely challenged to demonstrate it from the
Gospels.
We shall have something more to say about the
originality of Christ’s teaching presently ; we confine our-
�( 13 )
«elves now to his personal character. Take away from the
Gospel story the pathetic legend of Calvary, which throws around
him a glamor of suffering, and what is there in his whole life of
a positive heroic quality ? He is a tame, effeminate, shrinking
figure, beside hundreds of men who have not been made the
-object of a superstitious cultus. His brief, ineffective career, so
■soon closed by his own madness or ambition, will not bear a
moment’s comparison with the long and glorious life of Buddha.
It pales into insignificance before the mighty genius of
Muhammed. Doctrine apart, the Nazarene is to the Meccan as
a pallid moon to a fiery sun. With the single exception of
•Cromwell, who was a more original character than twenty Christs
rolled into one, where shall we find Muhammed’s equal in
history ? As Eliot Warburton well said, he stands almost alone
in “ the sustained and almost superhuman energy with which he
carried out his views, in defiance, as it would seem, of God and
man.” Christ quails in his Gethsemane. Muhammed struggles
through his seven years’ ordeal of obloquy and danger like a
resolute swimmer, who scorns to turn back, and will reach the
■other shore or die. When his followers faint under the burning
desert sun, he tells them that “Hell is hotter,” and silences
their murmurs. Christ cries in ah agony of despair, “My
■God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ? ”
When
Muhammed’s assassination is resolved on at Mecca, each of
the tribes devoting a sword to drink his blood, and Abubekar,
the companion of his flight, says “We are but two,” the
indomitable prophet answers “We are three, for God is
with us.” Christ implores “ 0 my' father, if it be possible,
let this cup pass from me.” When Muhammed is threa
tened by the Koreishites, so that his most devoted followers
remonstrate against his projects, he makes the sublime answer,
“ If they should place the sun on my right hand, and the moon
on my left, they should not divert me from my course.” Within
a century after the Hegira, the empire of Islam had spread from
Arabia eastward to Delhi and westward to Granada. Oh, it is
•said, Muhammed used the sword. True, but not before it was
drawn against him. The man who rode to Jerusalem, and
-called himself King of the Jews, would have used the sword too
had he dared. “ The sword indeed,” snorts Carlyle at this
rubbish, “ but where will you get your sword ? Every new
■opinion, at its starting, is precisely in a minority of one. In one
man’s head alone there it dwells as yet. That Ae'take a sword
•and try to propagate with that will do little for him. You
�( 14 )
must first get your sword. On the whole, a thing will propa
gate itself as it can. We do not find, of the Christian religion
either, that it always disdained the sword, when once it had gotone.” True, thou sarcastic old sage of Chelsea, and the sting
is in the tail. From Constantine downwards, Christianity has
not been imposed on mankind without, as Sir James Stephen
remarks, exhausting all the terrors of this life as well as the
next.
Mill tells us that Christ was a “martyr” to his “mission ”
as a “moral reformer.” We should like to know how he dis
covered the fact. Certainly not from the Gospels. It was not
the Sermon on the Mount, but his vagaries at Jerusalem, that
led to the crucifixion. Christ deliberately chose twelve disciples,
the legendary number of the tribes of Israel, and told them that
when he came into his kingdom they should sit on twelve
" thrones as judges. Professor Newman answers those who call
this language figurative with the just remark that “ we should
call a teacher mad who used such words to simple men, and did
not expect them to understand him literally.” When the dis
ciples ask him, “ Lord, wilt thou at this time restore the kingdom '
unto Israel ?” he does not rebuke them (although it is after his
resurrection), but simply says that the time is a secret. His
triumphal entry into Jerusalem can only be considered as a
, declaration of sovereignty, and his countenancing the shout
' of Hosanna! (the war cry of previous insurrections, and an
appeal to Jehovah against the foe) could only be construed as
rebellion against Rome. His conduct inside Jerusalem was that
of a man intoxicated with vanity and ambition, without judg
ment, policy, or purpose. The very inscription on the cross shows
that he was believed to aim at earthly royalty. Pontius Pilate
tried to save Jesus, acting wisely and humanely as the repre
sentative of an empire that was always tolerant in matters of
religion. He would not receive a charge of blasphemy, but he
could not overlook a charge of sedition. Yet he still gave Jesus
an opportunity of escaping. “ Come now,” he seems to say,
“ your enemies want your blood. Your blasphemy is no businessof mine, and I shall not decide a squabble between your rabid
sects. But I must try you if they accuse you of sedition. You
are young, and cannot wish to die. Plead ‘not guilty.’ Deny
the charge. Say you are not the King of the Jews and do not
contemplate rebellion. One word, and I save you from death. You
shall go free though all the rabbis in Jerusalem howled like mad
dogs. Rome shall stand between bigotry and blood.” But-
�( 15 )
Jesus actually admits the indictment, and afterwards remains
contumaciously silent. Pilate had no alternative ; he sentenced
Jesus to execution ; but amid all the absurd fictions of the nar
rative, the fact shines out clearly that he did so with the utmost
reluctance. To call the death of Christ, in these circumstances,
a martyrdom, is to degrade the name. He died for no principle.
The truth would have saved him, and he would not utter it.
Either he was in a stupor of despair, or so crazed with the
Messianic delusion that he still trusted to the legion of angels
for his rescue. In any case it was an act of insanity. He
courted his doom. It was not a martyrdom but a suicide.
We may also observe that, if a cultus had not been formed
around it, and men’s imaginations suborned in its favor from
the cradle, the “ martyrdom ” of Christ would be obviously lesssevere than that of many persecuted reformers.
Giordano
Bruno’s Gethsemane was an Inquisition dungeon, where he
languished in solitude for seven years, and was tortured no one
knows how often. What was Christ’s few hours’ agony of
weakness before death compared with this ? Bruno died by.
fire, the most cruel form of murder, whilst Christ suffered the
milder doom of crucifixion. Christ was watched by weeping
women, whose sympathy must have alleviated his pain; and it
was not until the hand of death touched his very heart that he
despaired of assistance from heaven. Bruno stood alone against
the world, without any sources of courage but his own quench
less heroism. Christ quailed before the inevitable. Bruno met
it with a serene smile, for he had that within him which only
death could extinguish—a daring fiery spirit, that nothing could
quell, that outsoared the malice of men, and outshone the flames
of the stake.
Mill’s remarks on the originality of Christ’s teaching betray
his utter ignorance of the subject. It is of no use, he says, to
assert that the Christ of the Gospels is not historical. Begging
his pardon, that is the most important factor in the problem.
If the Gospels are what we allege (and no scholar would dispute
it), George Eliot is right in saying that the materials for a
biography of Jesus do not exist, and Mill’s “ rational criticism ”
is a purely fantastic process. But the reason he assigns for his
position is still more absurd. Who, he asks, could have in
vented the sayings ascribed to Jesus ? Certainly, he says, not
St. Paul: a sentence which alone stamps him as an incompetent
critic. No man who understood the subject would ever have
thought of anticipating such a preposterous objection. “Cer
�( 16 )
tainly not the fishermen of Galilee,” is equally futile, for no
student of the origin of Christianity supposes that the Gospels
were written by the first disciples. They are of much later
date. But except for that fact, why might not the “ fishermen
of Galilee ” have been able to invent the logia of the Gospels
as well as Jesus ? He was only a carpenter, and there is no
reason in the nature of things why fishermen should not equal
carpenters as prophets, preachers, and moralists. Mill is alto
gether on the wrong scent. There was no need for Christ or
his disciples to invent the sayings ascribed to him. As we have
already remarked, they were the common possession of the East
before his birth. The Lord’s Prayer is merely a cento from the
Talmud, and, as Emanuel Deutsch showed, every catchword of
Christ’s was a household word of Talmudic Judaism before he
began his ministry. There is not a single maxim, however good
or bad, however sensible or silly, in the whole of Christ’s dis
courses that cannot be found in the writings of Pagan moralists
and poets or Jewish doctors who flourished before him; and his
best sayings, if they may be called his, were all anticipated by
Buddha several centuries before he was born. It is also well
known that the Golden Rule, as it is called, was taught by Con
fucius long before the time of Christ, without any of the
absurdities with which the Nazarene surrounded it. “ Love
your enemies,” says Christ, as though it were wise or possible to
do so. Confucius corrected this exaggeration. “No,” he said,
“ if I love my enemies, what shall I give to my friends ? To
my friends I give my love, and to my enemies—justice.! ”
We think we have said enough to show that Mill’s panegyric
on Christ is utterly valueless. Mr. Matthew Arnold is far more
subtle and dexterous in his eulogy; but he knows the subject
as well as Mill knew it badly. If the apologists of Christianity
are prudent, they will cease to make use of Mill’s tribute to
their Blessed Savior, or at least employ it only before people
who are in that blissful ignorance which fancies it folly to be
•wise.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
What was Christ? a reply to John Stuart Mill
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 16 p. ; 17 cm.
Notes: Reply to passages in Mill's Three essays on religion. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Printed and published by G.W. Foote.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company Limited
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1887
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N269
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p>
<p class="western">This work (What was Christ? a reply to John Stuart Mill), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jesus Christ
John Stuart Mill
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1d7608b46bd344b1121a5e38baed0e57.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=REjXN0PaEYGkHutSVnjI5MRBGQBld1k3OQ6lZwQYO6a0qNUNuKK4%7EphSryWinIQo7sC2RV0EQo8RfPkA8nWp%7E8uwZwPPZkvnBt6hH6Onv8ZDQnDdyF9JfAQDU87pPdCMyrEupwCav4uyQc6gmiOaOeSXgXxVucyPrI1p4vgH4PiLnqVWgVeK7nVzL5beoS43FhT%7EcIz19wPg8BVITMsWhv-Bjs-DGFMAjgOObqAnks5Aa3Z617SwmXrtuuPI9VZk4cvsR47kX6EKQWapyWJorivVc-e06vSb%7ECs42Gbj6o-XGllsEw-K-TS-WRQbSRddCB9T-9sLBzU3F%7Euej1p%7EkQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
71f4ba2d194dc088bee189489fb2095c
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
LETTERS
TO
JESUS
CHRIST.
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
LONDON
PROGRESSIVE PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 Stonecutter Street, E.C.
1886.
�LONDON:
PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�^50
THE INCARNATION.
-------- ♦--------
Dear Sir, dear Ghost, or dear God,—
You are reputed to be everywhere, and therefore I
presume you will see this letter, although I am unable
to send it through the post. I would have ventured
on that method of conveyance, but I was deterred by
the failure of a pious gentleman in Germany, who
posted a letter to “God, in Heaven,” and had it re
turned as “ insufficiently addressed.” A similar
difficulty occurred to me a few years ago, when I was
prosecuted by your zealous admirers for doubting your
absolute perfection. I wished to call you as a witness
in the case, but I found no one to serve the subpoena.
When you were on earth, more than eighteen centu
ries ago, you advised people to “ search the scriptures.”
Following your recommendation, I have searched them,
and I have paid the penalty which is generally exacted
from those who are in any respect wiser than their
neighbors, or their neighbors’ priests. Yet my zeal for
knowledge is unabated ; and as my study of the Bible
has opened up an endless vista of curious problems,
^vhich none of the commentators are able to solve, I
take the liberty of communicating with you person
ally, and seeking the assistance of the only being who
can help me in my perplexity.
My inquiries will be restricted to the New Testa
ment. When I desire the aid of an infallible guide
through the mazes of the Old Testament, I shall apply
to your heavenly father. But as his temper was al
ways violent and irascible, and may not have im
�4
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
proved with age, I shall naturally postpone my inves
tigations in that direction until my thirst for informa
tion can no longer be resisted.
I shall, in the present letter, confine myself to the
subject of your nativity. When a week has elapsed, I
shall trouble you with a fresh communication, and
subsequently perhaps with others, dealing with various
aspects of your marvellous career.
Judging from many passages in the Gospels, I should
say that, in the opinion of your contemporaries, you
were born like other babies. They called you “ the
carpenter’s son,” referred to Mary as your natural
mother, recited the names of your four brothers, and
alluded to your sisters, who completed the family
circle. Nor does it appear, from the report of the trial
which preceded your execution, that your friends or
your enemies breathed a whisper of your miraculous
birth. What is still more surprising, two of your four
biographers fail to mention the circumstance. Had
the gospels of Matthew and Luke been lost in the
stream of time, we should never have learnt from
Mark and John that your entrance into the world was
at all uncommon.
Will you kindly explain their silence ? At present
it puzzles me. Did they think your being born without
a father was too trivial a fact to record ? Did they
disbelieve the story, and treat it with quiet contempt ?
Or had they never heard of it, and is their silence due
to their ignorance ? I cannot conceive of another al
ternative, and whichever I accept, the mystery remains
unsolved. Yet truth is so simple and perspicuous, that
when you disclose it on this subject I shall doubtless
comprehend it at a glance, and wonder I had not un
derstood it before.
At present, however, I am in a dilemma. If Mark
and John disbelieved the story of your miraculous
birth, they neutralise the testimony of Matthew and
Luke. It is two against two, and the Lord (that is,
yourself) only knows whom to believe. If Mark and
John never heard of the story, it could not have been
widely prevalent, and this militates against its truth,
for so tremendous a fact could hardly have been con-
�THE INCARNATION.
0
cealed, or confined to the notice of a few. There
remains the supposition that they regarded the fact
itself as trivial. If they did so, it could only be for
one reason. You were born without a father, but
other boys have been in the same plight. Illegitimacy
has in all ages been too frequent to be wonderful, and
it is a topic on which those immediately concerned
are discreetly reticent. Yet it is no one’s fault if his
parents anticipated or neglected the rites of matrimony;
and if, as Celsus declared in the second century, there
was a bar sinister in your escutcheon, you cannot be
blamed for a transaction in which you were involved
without being consulted. Considering this, therefore,
you may deign to tell me how the matter stands. Still,
if the theme is painful, I refrain from pressing you for
an answer.
Personally, I have long thought that being born
without a father is no miracle. Had you been of divine
origin, you or your progenitor might have demon
strated the fact by dispensing with the assistance of a
mother. Such a miracle would have been too obvious
for disbelief, and the greatest sceptic would have been
convinced. But when there is a mother in the case,
common sense will always conclude that there is a
father somewhere.
Matthew and Luke, I find, differ from each other, as
well as from Mark and John. One makes Joseph dis
cover Mary’s premature pregnancy, while the other
says it was revealed to him in a dream. One relates
the Annunciation, while the other omits it. One
affirms that your birth was heralded by angels who
appeared to some shepherds, while the other declares
that it was heralded by a star which the Magi followed
from the east, probably from Persia. One records the
massacre of the innocents, while the other ignores it.
Two such witnesses would damn any case, when they
both appear on the same side.
Supposing Matthew is right, will you inform me
how the Magi followed a star, the nearest being millions
of miles distant ? And how did the star “ stand over ”
the place where your mother was literally in the
straw ? Was it a meteor, expressly provided for the
�6
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
occasion, or an angel with an electric light or a dark
lantern ?
You might also inform me (for it is a point of some
interest) whether there is any truth in the legend that
your parents were too poor to pay for decent accom
modation ; or whether, as Luke intimates, they were
obliged to occupy a stable because the hotel was “ full
up,” and no gentleman would go outside to oblige a
lady ?
I should also be obliged by your telling me when
you were born. Luke says it was when Cyrenius was
governor of Syria, but that was ten years after the
beginning of our era. Some scholars maintain that
you were born two, and others four, years before the
orthodox date ; while the Jews place the event nearly
a century earlier. Nor is the day of your birth settled
to my satisfaction. Your worshippers say it was the
25th of December, but that is not a season when sheep
pasture out at night. Neither your brethren, your
apostles, your biographers, nor the Fathers of the early
Church, knew that you were born on that day. It was
not recognised until the second half of the fourth
century, and that very date was the birthday of all the
sun-gods of antiquity. I am not apprising you of
these facts, for of course you know them. I am
simply stating the grounds of my dubiety. Probably
you know when you were born ; I do not. You cer
tainly were present; I was not. I am, therefore,
justified in asking you to settle the question for me,
and for other inquiring spirits. Lighten our darkness,
we beseech thee, 0 Lord.
With regard to your godhead, I am dying for news.
Your biographers are very unsatisfactory on this point.
They evidently wrote for a credulous age, when every
fable and legend was swallowed without a question.
But this age is more critical, and you will pardon my
curiosity, which is shared by millions.
Other children begin their existence when they enter
this world, but your career began milleniums before
you were born. According to your own statement, you
lived before Abraham. What were you doing all this
time, and where did you reside ? Were you really the
�THE INCARNATION’.
7
hero of the Song of Songs which is Solomon’s ? Was
it yon and your prospective Church, as the headings
of the chapters indicate, who exchanged all those
amorous greetings, and indulged in all that voluptuous
imagery ? Did you liken your mystical bride, still
unborn, and hidden in the womb of time, to a lily
among thorns ? Did you resemble her neck to the
tower of David, her breasts to twin roes, her eyes to
the fishpools of Heshbon, and her nose to the tower of
Lebanon which looketh toward Damascus ? Did you
expatiate still more lusciously on her hidden charms,
in the manner of Ovid or Catullus ? And did she, the
unborn beauty, reciprocate the strain, and chant a
poetical inventory of your manly graces ? If she was
not blinded by passion, but spoke the simple truth,
you must have been a regular lady-killer. Perhaps
this explains the number of your female devotees in
Palestine, including pretty Mary Magdalene, and the
rich women who ministered unto you of their sub
stance.
When you write, if you vouchsafe me a reply, you
might answer these questions. You might also inform
me whether such glowing strains are fit to be read by
children, as part of the word of God. The children
of this age, at least, are precocious enough. There is
no necessity for the Bible to teach the young idea how
to shoot. Still, the Canticles are splendid poetry, and
if you wrote or inspired them, you are entitled to a
place in the hierarchy of genius. How miserably you
had degenerated when you took to preaching I The
passion was left, but the poetry was gone.
According to Matthew your father and mother were
espoused, but before the knot was tied Mary astonished
her husband with an unexpected rotundity. Not
liking the aspect of affairs, he “ was minded to put her
away privily.” I suppose the poor fellow was going to
emigrate, and sing “ The girl I left behind me.” But
one night an angel visited him in a dream, told him it
was all correct, warned him not to decamp, and bade
him marry the girl. When he awoke he believed it.
He had a right to, yet he could hardly expect his
friends to show the same credulity. I confess I am
�8
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
not so satisfied as he was, and I doubt whether the
most pious carpenter in Christendom would believe
such a story about his own sweetheart, on similar evi
dence. But that was the age of faith, and judging
from the tales of old mythology, Joseph was not the
first husband who fathered the offspring of a ghost.
Luke’s narrative, however, seems inconsistent with
Matthew’s. According to his story there was no such
contretemps. Joseph’s felicity was not marred by any
doubt of his bride’s chastity. He appears (I beg par
don for speaking so of your father, but it was long ago)
to have been an easy wittol. Perhaps, after all, as a
friend of mine once heard a Jesuit preacher say in
Italy, he was not deceived, for Joseph was your carnal
father, and the miracle of your incarnation, like all
other miracles, was operated by natural agency. This,
however, is quite incompatible with Matthew’s express
statement (i., 25) that Joseph was merely a nominal
husband until after your birth.
Your actual father, or, if I may so express it, your
ultimate father, was not an ordinary ghost, but the
Holy Ghost. Like the peace of God, this mystery
passes all understanding. How could a ghost, however
holy, become the father of a bouncing boy ? Catholic
divines have discussed this point elaborately, but their
speculations are too obscene for repetition. I will not
imitate their filth or their blasphemy. Yet I may re
mark, that when they speak of the holy pigeon or dove,
they suggest the Pagan pictures of Leda and Jove.
Between a paternal dove and a paternal swan, the
difference is only one of ornithology. Correggio’s
magnificent picture of Jupiter and Io may be an
adumbration of the truth, but I leave the mystery for
your solution. When you illuminate my natural dark
ness on this sacrosanct wonder, I shall, with your
permission, enlighten my fellows, and close the most
bestial chapter of religious controversy.
At present I cannot understand a baby God. Did
God mewl and puke in his nurse’s arms ? Did God
kick and squeal in his bath ? Did God stare foolishly
at his little toes ? Did God howl when he was pricked
by a nasty pin ? Was God suckled by his mother, or
�THE INCARNATION.
9
brought up on the bottle ? Did God increase the family
washing bill ? Was God put in a cradle and rocked
to sleep ? Did God have the measles ? Did God have
a bad time in teething ? Did God learn to walk by
the domestic furniture ? Did God tumble down on
his nose or on the broader part he once displayed to
Moses ? Did God learn his A B C ? Was God spanked
• when he misbehaved ? Did God play at marbles and
-make mud-pies ? Did God fight other boys in the
street, sometimes thrashing, and sometimes being
thrashed ? Did God run home to his mother with a
sanguinary nose ? Did God, as he grew up, enter a
carpenter’s shop to learn the trade ? Did God cut his
alm ighty fingers with the chisel, and shave his celestial
skin with the jack-plane ?
These are pertinent questions. No one but a bigot
would call them blasphemous.. If those things really
happened, I am ready to believe them ; if they did
not, the world should be disabused. I put my queries
in the interest of truth. Your priests may howl, but
that is their profession.
Your incarnation is nothing unique. We find its
parallels in Oriental avatars, and in the heroes of Pagan
mythology. The sons of God have always seen the
daughters of men that they were fair, and on reading
the reports of the Divorce Court we find they still
exhibit the same old taste.
Centuries before you were born the Egptian goddess
Isis was depicted holding the divine child Horus in
her arms. Christian paintings of the madonna and
bambino are merely copies of ancient iconography.
The type varies like the artist’s genius, but the subject
is the same. Nay, the whole story of the Annuncia
tion related by Luke, was chiselled on the walls of the
sanctuary in the Temple of Luxor before the Jewish
scriptures were written, before Rome arose on her
seven hills, before Athens “ gleamed on its crest of
columns,” a beacon of civilisation to a barbarous
world. Your holy nativity seems a legend borrowed
from “ the motherland of superstitions.” I can come
to no other conclusion, and if I am to be damned for
my unbelief I protest against the injustice of my fate.
�10
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
If you were only a man, I have nothing to fear ; if
you are a god, you should satisfy my scruples before
censuring my scepticism. Belief does not depend on
will, but on evidence. A word from you would make
the dark path of faith luminous. If you leave it in
obscurity you cannot wonder if I stray. Surely the
being who said Let there be light, and there was light,
could easily dispel my darkness ; nor can I believe he
will, at the end of my journey, flash on me the illumi
nation of hell.
THE CRUCIFIXION.
Dear Sir, dear Ghost, or dear God,—
Last week I addressed you on the subject of your
Incarnation. You have not yet replied, but I do not
despair of an answer, for your movements were always
slow. Eighteen centuries ago you began to redeem the
world, and you have made little progress yet. If you
are so long fulfilling your solemn promises, I need not
wonder at your tardiness in answering my letter.
Besides, I am in no particular hurry. My questions
will keep, and I shall quietly await your convenience.
Some day you may have a spare hour to attend to
my communication. But I beg you will not send
a reply by lightning, to make up for lost time, as
my life is not heavily insured, and my wife would
not like the bother of an inquest. You need not even
incur the expense of a long telegram. The penny
post will do. Meanwhile I venture to address you
again on the subject of your Crucifixion. You can
answer both letters at once.
Your four biographers were badly chosen. Their
narratives are so discrepant, that no sensible man can
credit them without corroborating evidence from other
�THE CRUCIFIXION.
11
sources. That, however, is not forthcoming. Your
birth, your life, and your death, were all attended by
prodigies, yet none of them is mentioned by a single
profane writer, and they were disbelieved by the very
people among whom they occurred. Will you explain
this scepticism, and this conspiracy of silence ?
Matthew, Mark, and Luke bring you before Caiaphas
for examination, while John places the trial in the house
of Annas. Their account of the proceedings is simply
grotesque. From beginning to end it is contrary to
Jewish law and custom. The Sanhedrim was not a col
lection of roughs, but the great council of the State,
subject only to the ultimate authority of the Roman
governor ; and the idea that “ the chief priests, and all
the council,” not only violated every rule of procedure,
but actually surrounded a prisoner in court, and struck
fond spat upon him, is too utterly ridiculous for belief.
Why are your biographers so inaccurate ? Like your
self, X was accused of blasphemy ; I was tried, sen
tenced, and imprisoned, by your disciples. But I did
not leave the report of my trial to the hazard of acci
dent. 1 engaged a competent shorthand-writer, whose
notes were printed ; and on my release from the clutches
of your bigoted friends, I published a full account of
my imprisonment. What a pity you failed to take
Similar precautions 1 Still, the mischief is not irre
parable, and it is never too late to mend. You can
acquaint me with the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, and I will circulate the information. Or you can authorise Convocation to appoint a
new Revision Committee, and preside in person over
their sessions. This would enable them to dispense
with the assistance of the Holy Ghost, who invariably
confuses and misleads his confidants. I say his, not in
a dogmatic spirit, but because I am obliged to use a
pronoun. I have no wish to decide whether the Holy
Ghost is masculine, feminine, or neuter ; he, she, or it.
Until I am instructed on this point, I hold my judg
ment in suspense. Yet I am desirous to know th©
truth, and I shall be obliged if you will satisfy my
curiosity.
Your biographers all agree that you were crucified,
�12
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
but doubts are suggested by other portions of the New
Testament. Paul, whom you converted by a miracle or
a sunstroke, preached Christ and him crucified. Yet,
in his epistle to the Galatians, he says that you became
a curse for us, “ for it is written, Cursed is every one
that hangeth on a tree.” Peter (you will remember
him—cock-crowing, S’elp me God, Peter) in the Acts of
the Apostles and in his first Epistle, repeatedly says
that you were hanged on a tree. I am therefore unable
to decide whether you were crucified or hung, but in
either case you are to be pitied. Julius Csesar, and
other brave men, have agreed that a sudden death is
the best. But the death of a malefactor in ancient
times was both painful and ignominious. I really
wish you had been allowed to die a natural death on a
good feather-bed, and that the rich women, who sub
scribed largely to your expenses while you were on
circuit, had given you a decent funeral.
One of the early Christian sects, the Basilidians,
denied that you were executed at all. According to
their theory, Simon the Cyrenean was crucified in your
stead. You disappeared when he shouldered the Cross,
and poor Simon, being miraculously made to resemble
you, became a vicarious sacrifice. The idea is amusing,
but I reject it. You were not remarkable for courage,
but I scarcely believe you played the poor devil such a
shabby trick. Another Christian fancy was that Judas
Iscariot was obliged to act as your proxy. That at
least implies a kind of poetical justice, and it might
be called “Judas for Jesus, or the biter bit.”
By the way, you might inform me what became of
Judas. Did he bring back the price of your betrayal,
and did the priests buy a field with it, as Matthew
asserts ; or did he keep the money, and purchase the
field himself, as is distinctly stated in the Acts of the
Apostles ? Did he hang himself, according to the first
authority ; or did he fall down, and rupture his bowels,
according to the second ? And if both accounts are
true, will you tell me whether the rupture preceded the
hanging, or the hanging the rupture ? I should also
like it explained why Papias, in the second century,
having (as it is alleged) the Gospel of Matthew before
�THE CRUCIFIXION.
13
him, stated that Judas “ walked about in this world a
great example of impiety,” grew terribly corpulent,
and was killed by being crushed between a chariot and
a wall.
._ _
Your biographers tell us that you were crucified on a
Friday, and all of them, with the exception of John,
describe it as the first day of the Passover. They must,
however, have been mistaken ; for no trials or execu
tions took place among the Jews on any feast day ;
and, according to the Jewish calendar, the first day of
the Passover never was, and never can be, on a Friday.
It is a singular thing that the anniversary of your
Crucifixion varies every year. You must have died,
if you ever lived, on a particular day, which should be
regularly celebrated. But Good Friday, as your
devotees call it, is determined by the phases of the
moon, a planet which is sacred to lunatics. Being
decided by astronomical signs, the anniversary is
probably borrowed from ancient sun-worship. Why
do you not set our minds at rest on this point ?
It would cost you little trouble, and give us much
satisfaction.
The hour of your Crucifixion is equally uncertain.
Two of your biographers say that you expired at three
in the afternoon. According to Mark, you were cruci
fied at nine ; according to Luke, you were tried that
morning ; and according to John, the court was still
sitting at mid-day. Some discrepancies may be recon
ciled, but you could not have been tried at twelve and
executed at nine. Here is another point on which you
might enlighten us.
While you were on the cross, were you wounded in
the side by a Roman spear? Matthew, Mark, and
Luke, omit the circumstance. John is the only writer
who mentions it, and he seems to have had a special
reason for doing so. After your Resurrection, he intro
duces Thomas Didymus, who was entirely unknown to
the Synoptics ; and there are sceptics who urge that he
devised the spear-thrust simply that Doubting Tommy
might have a ready-made hole when he probed your
side. This appears to me irreverent, if not blas
phemous, and I merely mention it that the truth may
�14
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
be established, and a subject of jest taken from these
impious witlings.
John alleges that the spear drew blood and water.
No blood would flow if you were dead, and if you were
living no water, unless you suffered from the dropsy.
May I suggest that this point deserves your atten
tion ?
With respect to the two thieves who were crucified
with you, John barely alludes to them, and Matthew
and Mark say they both mocked you. Luke, however,
declares that one of them rebuked the other, and
gained from you a ticket for heaven. Kindly tell me
which I am to believe.
Pilate set an inscription on your cross in three differ
ent languages, which was perhaps a subtle compliment
to the Trinity. Your biographers read it clearly, and
wrote it in four different ways. Matthew says it was,
“This is Jesus the King of the Jews”; Mark, “The
King of the Jews”; Luke, “This is the King of the
Jews ”; and John, “ Jesus of Nazareth the King of the
Jews.” Even on a point like this, where accuracy
might be expected, they are in hopeless disagreement.
Will you explain the discrepancy ? Which evangelist
is right, or are they all wrong ?
Three hundred years after your Crucifixion the cross
on which you suffered was found by St. Helena, the
mother of Constantine. The inscription upon it was
still fresh, but it was never copied. Had the clergy
shown less discretion, or more solicitude, the world
would have known the truth. As it is, we are still
puzzled by the variance of your biographers, and unless
you assist us we shall be puzzled till the day of judg
ment, when the truth will be too late.
Multitudes of sermons have been preached on the
enigmatical words “ It is finished,” which, according
to John, were the last you uttered. According to
Luke, however, your last words were, “ Father, unto
thy hands I commend my spirit,” while Matthew and
Mark say that you uttered a loud cry and gave up the
ghost. A centurion standing by exclaimed, “ Truly
this man was the son of God.” Truly he was easily
convinced. I hope I am not expected to show the
�THE CRUCIFIXION.
15
same credulity ; yet if you repeat the same cry in my
hearing it may produce the same effect.
Your biographers inform us that the sun was eclipsed
for tibree hours at your Crucifixion. Will you kindly
explain why no J ewish or Pagan annalist ever heard
of this supernatural darkness ? Matthew informs us,
in addition, that many dead saints rose from their
graves, walked into Jerusalem, and publicly exhibited
themselves. How is it that this unparalleled marvel
escaped the notice of every profane writer ? Did it
really occur ? And if so, did those resurrected saints
return to their graves, or are they still an army of
Wandering Jews ? I am emboldened to ask these
questions, because three of your biographers do not
record the grave-splitting earthquake. I hope my
curiosity is not blasphemous. I am sure it is natural.
If the old telephone between heaven and earth is destroyed, Madly send a special messenger, and I will pay
his expenses. But please warn him not to leave Ms
message with the servant. If I am out when he calls,
he can make an appointment for the next day, and I
Will pay his hotel bill. If he calls at my office, warn
him against the printer’s devil.
You. might also tell me whether you cried out on the
cross <• My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me ?”
If y&a. did utter that ejaculation, were you calling to
yourself or to another ? Was it the cry of a deity play
ing a part, or the cry of a deluded enthusiast in the
hour of despair ? Was it a tragedy or a farce ?
Pardo©, me also for inquiring why you allowed
yourself to be crucified at all. It is obvious that
Pilate tried to save you. Had you denied the charge
of rebellion, he would have acquitted and protected
yon. But you rejected his assistance ; you courted
your doom ; and your death was less a martyrdom than
a suicide. What was the reason of this strange con
duct ? Were you stupefied with fear ? Were you afraid
to face the mob again, after their experience of your
divinity ? Or were you disillusioned, and had life no
further charm ?
Such questions proceed on the supposition that you
were a man. If you were a god, your death is still
�16
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
more amazing. You gained nothing by it, andwehavS
profited as little. It may be possible, as the priests of
your creed tell us, that your sufferings on the cross will
mysteriously confer some benefit upon us in another
world. But until you distinctly inform me so yourseM
I shall venture to doubt it. It appears to me that your
omnipotence, and certainly your omniscience, would
have been more judiciously displayed, had you exer
cised the creative faculty with which you brought the
universe into existence from nothing. Surely the
being who produced all things by the fiat of his almighty
will, could as easily have regenerated the human
race, without designing a monstrous drama in which
one man betrayed his friend with a kiss and thousands
of others assisted or connived at a judicial murder.
Judging from the history of the world since Chris
tianity was established, I should say that your cruci
fixion has been more of a curse than a blessing. In
stead of your sufferings moving the heart to pity,
they have too often moved it to hatred and cruelty.
The Crusaders captured Jerusalem on Good Friday,
and entered the doomed city at the very hour of your
Passion. They immediately proceeded to offer up a
bloody sacrifice to their deity. Seventy thousand
“ infidels ” were slaughtered, the Jews were burnt in
their synagogue, and in the Mosque of Omar the blood
was knee-deep and dashed up to the horses’ bridles.
Your holy champions, who were all decorated with a
cross, interrupted their orgie of blood to pay their
devotions. After piously kneeling on the various spots
they supposed to have been hallowed by your presence,
they resumed the massacre of your enemies, beginning
with three hundred prisoners whose safety had been
solemnly assured. The Saracens were flung from the
tops of houses and towers ; women with children at
their breasts, girls and boys, were indiscriminately
slaughtered. It was a hell of rapine, murder, and lust.
No heart, among the warriors of the cross, melted with
compassion. Where your blood was shed to save, they
sacrificed myriads of victims ; where you are said to
have forgiven your enemies, they exhibited the cruelty
of fiends. The carnage lasted a week, and when the
�THE CRUCIFIXION.
17
victors were tired of slaying, they sold the survivors as
slaves.
Such were the deeds of the “ Soldiers of Christ,”
who fought under the symbol of your Crucifixion.
How different was the conduct of the Saracens when
they recaptured Jerusalem a century later ! Not a
superfluous drop of blood was shed, and the noble
Saladin softened the rigors of the capitulation to thou
sands, whose only claim on his generosity was that they
were human. He ransomed a multitude of captives
from his private purse, restored the mothers to their
children, and the husbands to their wives. A Moham
medan infidel, he regarded your divinity as a supersti
tion, but his humanity compels our admiration and love,
and stands out in bold relief against the uniform
savagery of your devotees.
Your Crucifixion had done no good for the Crusaders.
What has it done for mankind? Worshipping “dead
limbs of gibbeted gods,” the world grew fouler; its
mind was debased by associating images of carnage
with its loftiest ideals ; and history attests that the
Cross never gleamed so brightly as when it rose above
the fires of the stake, or shone over seas of blood.
Every red drop that fell from your hands and feet and
brows, turned into deadly poison, with which your
priests have infected humanity. Heart and mind have
been alike degraded, cruelty and superstition being
twin curses ; and at this day, the Christians who most
closely resemble your first disciples, assume the watch
word and trade-mark of “ Blood and Fire,” while their
religious antics are worthy of the fetishists of Africa.
Were you a god, and did you foresee this ? I shrink
from the terrible conclusion. It is too appalling. It
makes the universe an infinite hell. Until you expressly
tell me otherwise, and assure me that the only philo
sophy is despair, I shall prefer to think that the Jesus
who perished on a Roman cross was a Jewish enthu
siast, weak like most men, and mortal like all.
�18
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
THE
RESURRECTION.
Dear Sir, dear Ghost, or Dear God,—
You have not yet vouchsafed an answer to my pre
vious letters. I am a little disappointed, but I shall
continue my epistles. When you have the leisure and
inclination you will doubtless respond. Perhaps your
heavenly messengers are fully occupied at present, and
I must wait till one of them is disengaged. If the
rest of the universe is as disordered as this planet, with
its volcanoes, earthquakes, wars, diseases, starvation,
misery, and political revolutions, I fancy they will not
lack employment for a considerable time. Yet the
matters on which I am addressing you are of vast im
portance, and I trust you will give me your earliest
convenient attention.
This letter will deal with your Resurrection. Ac
cording to the clergy, this event is the corner stone of
Christianity. It should, therefore, be indisputable.
The evidence for it should be clear, positive, and over
whelming. I am sorry to say it is not. Faith “ believeth
all things,” as Paul says, and those who possess that
virtue can dispense with proof. But my stock of faith
is limited. You, or your father, or the Holy Ghost,*
gave me a sceptical turn of mind, and if you expect
me to believe, you should proportion the evidence to
my incredulity.
Some' have doubted whether you really died on the
cross. Pilate marvelled that you expired so soon, and
when your body was taken down, your legs were not
broken, like those of the two thieves. Considering
this, some have held that your Resurrection and Ascen
sion were arranged between yourself and your disciples,]
that you were never buried as the Gospels relate,
because you were not dead, and that you retired to an
Essenean monastery, where you spent the rest of your
days in quiet obscurity. Such a notion seems far
fetched, however ; and I take it for granted that you
�THE RESURRECTION.
19
“gave up the ghost,” as your biographers assert. Not
that I quite understand what ghost you resigned. That
is a point on which I crave a little information.
According to your biographers you were buried at
the expense of your friend, Mr. Joseph of Arimathsea.
He appears to have done the thing handsomely, and
your obsequies were a little above your station in
life. He laid your body in a new tomb, rolled a
big stone against the entrance, and went home to
supper. No doubt he wished you an eternal fare
well. I cannot conceive that he expected to see you
again, or he would have left you a free exit when
you took it into your head to walk out.
In that sepulchre you performed a marvellous feat.
You spent three days there between late on Friday
night and early on Sunday morning. Many who are
engaged on day work would like to know how you
did it* Perhaps you reckoned according to the rules of
your father’s shop—I refer to Joseph, and not to the
Holy Ghost. Saturday was one day, and the nights
counted as two more.
The Apostles’ Creed states that you—I suppose it
means your soul—descended into hell during your
burial | and it was then, I presume, that you “ preached
unto the spirits in prison.” Indeed, one of the
apocryphal gospels, in use by some of your early
followers, gives a lively account of how you harried
the realm of Old Harry, emptying hell wholesale, and
robbing the poor Devil of his illustrious subjects,
from Adam to John the Baptist. If this story be
true, how do you explain your promise to the peni
tent thief—“To day shalt thou be with me in
Paradise ” ? Did you really say “ To day shalt thou
be with me in hell ” ? Or did you forget your in
tended trip to Gehenna, and had the poor thief to
linger outside the gate of heaven until you arrived
to pass him in ?
With respect to the Jerusalem big-wigs who com
passed your death, and proved that a single company
of Roman soldiers were more than a match for a
legion of angels, one of your biographers tells an as
tounding story. They informed Pilate that you had
�20
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
promised to rise again after three days, and requested
him to take precautions against your disciples’ play
ing the part of body-snatchers. Pilate gave them a
watch of soldiers. But there was an earthquake on the
Saturday night, and an angel flew down from heaven
and rolled away the stone, which he sat on, frightening
your keepers into fits. In the confusion you seem to
have walked off and borrowed a suit of clothes. Mean
while the soldiers went and told the chief priests and
elders what had happened. Those gentry gave them
“ large money,” told them to say that your disciples
stole the body while they slept, and promised to make
it all right with Pilate.
Now this is a wonderful story, and I hope I am not
impious in wishing it explained. How did the Jeru
salem big-wigs know that you had prophesied your
Resurrection when your disciples, as John tells us (xx.,
9), were ignorant of it themselves ? How could their
deceiving the people be any protection against you?
Why did they continue to treat you as “a deceiver”
after you had convinced them to the contrary ? Had
they really the superhuman courage, or the asinine
stupidity, to oppose and vilify one who had proved
himself the lord of life and death? Did a company
of Roman soldiers actually take a bribe to confess
that they had slept at their posts, and had thus com
mitted an offence punishable with death ? And how
came they to trust for their safety to the Sanhedrim,
when that body was notoriously at loggerheads with
the Governor ?
Until you enlighten me on these points I shall
decline to believe the story; and when Matthew says
that “this saying is commonly reported among the
Jews until this day,” I fancy I see an indication
that the narrative was concocted long after your
lamented decease.
Will you also kindly inform me which of your
friends first visited your tomb on the morning of your
Resurrection ? Matthew brings two women, Mary
Magdalene and “ the other Mary.” Mark brings these
two with a third called Salome. Luke ignores
Salome, and substitutes Joanna. John brings Mary
�THE RESURRECTION.
21
Magdalene alone. In presence of these contradictions
I know not what to believe. I am, indeed, inclined
to ‘tliiiik that Mary Magdalene, your hysterical
adorer, dreamed the whole thing and imposed it on
your disciples.
May I also ask to whom you first appeared ?
Matthew says you appeared to the ladies; Mark and
John to Mary Magdalene ; Luke to two gentlemen on
the road to Emmaus. Not being endowed with
miraculous powers, I cannot believe them all. Will you
inform me which speaks the truth ? You might also sot
my mind at rest as to your subsequent interviews with
your friends, for my ingenuity is not capable of recon
ciling1 the statements of your biographers. Matthew
says you appeared once, Luke twice, Mark thrice, and
John four times. Were you, let me ask, a spectre or a
resuscitated corpse ? You gave doubting Thomas pal
pable proof of your substantial character, but on the
Other hand you crept through the keyhole of a closed
door and vanished like a hedge-row ghost. I am
Btill further puzzled by the statement that you ate a fish
dinner before you travelled to heaven. These things
are too hard for me, and I crave your assistance.
Your friend Paul complicates the matter still more,
for h® Says that you appeared unto five hundred of the
brethren at once, some of whom were alive when he
TOte. Yet, according to the Acts of the Apostles, the
total number of the brethren after your Ascension was
only a hundred and twenty. Were Paul’s wits, or at
least his arithmetic, disordered by that sunstroke ; or
did you return to earth after your Ascension, when the
brethren had multiplied, and give another farewell
performance, positively for the last time ?
I do not wish to bore you, but I venture to ask
you another question. Why did you appear only to
your disciples ? How was it that no outsider ever
caught sight of you ? Your Resurrection, according to
Paul, is the central fact of Christianity, the pledge
Of our immortality, and the promise of our redemp
tion. Why did you not substantiate it beyond dis
pute ? You might have challenged the whole city of
Jerusalem to the proof. You might have publicly
�22
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
appeared to your enemies as well as your friends,
and Pilate might have forwarded a full account of the
miracle to Rome, where it would have been preserved
in the imperial archives. The whole world would then
have been convinced. But, instead of this, you flitted
about mysteriously, concealing a fact, which it was
everyone’s interest to know, from all but a favored few,
who needed very little convincing. The Jews, among
whom your Resurrection occurred, denied it, and they
deny it to this day. Yet you could have easily con-vinced them, and your neglecting to do so has cost
that unhappy people ages of misery and rivers of
blood. When the great Czar Nicholas, one Easter
morning, was walking round his palace, he passed a
sentinel who happened to be a Jew. The lord of all
the Russias gave the morning’s salutation “ Christ is
risen.” But the Jewish sentinel grounded his musket
and said “Christ is not risen.” The two men gazed
at each other—czar and sentinel. They typified the
conflict of centuries. “ Christ is risen ” say millions
of aliens to the land of your birth. “Christ is not
risen,” say your countrymen. They have asserted it
through ages of awful persecution. They have affirmed
it through incredible sufferings and tortures. They
have maintained it amidst the ruin of their homes,
the massacre of their families, the violation of their
wives and daughters, and the flames of a myriad
stakes. Are they or their persecutors in the right ?
If you have the power to tell us, exercise it. Speak
and set the weary world at rest.
THE ASCENSION.
Still no answer ! You were always talking on earth,
but now you have returned to heaven you are silent as
the grave. Yet I will not despair. You may reply
�THE ASCENSION.
23
Wme day, Meanwhile I prosecute my inquiries. This
letter will, deal with your Ascension.
Matthew and Mark say that an angel at your sepulchre
told your disciples to go into Galilee, where you would
meet them. Luke knows nothing of this message ; he
keeps them in Jerusalem, and says you told them to
remain there. John also omits the message, although
he takes them to Galilee. Yet the Acts of the Apostles,
like Luke, distinctly states that you appeared to your
disciples, and personally “ commanded them that they
should not depart from Jerusalem.” Pray do some
thing to improve this defective harmony. I am not
like Tertullian, who believed a thing because it was
impossible, and considered its credibility enhanced by
its absurdity. Not until a miracle is operated in my
system can I rise to this altitude.
The Gospels and the Acts vary beyond reconciliation
as tn the time, the place, and the circumstances of your
Ascension. I am obliged to put them all aside as
worthless until you inform me which I may rely on.
Of your four biographers, two were admittedly not
present at your Ascension. Mark and Luke were not
among the twelve apostles. They do not even appear
to have been among your disciples. Tradition marks
them as followers of Peter and Paul. They were
therefore not eye-witnesses of your celestial flight.
They merely repeated hearsay, and their testimony is
not worth a rush. Matthew and John, however, are
said to have been present. Yet they do not mention
your trips to heaven. Two writers who were not there
tell us all about the event, while two writers who were
there are absolutely silent !
"Will you explain this startling difficulty ? By
the standard of carnal reason, it is a powerful,
nay an invincible objection to the reality of
your Ascension. Many scholars, and those the best,
within and without the Church, consider the second
half of the last chapter of Mark as spurious. It does
not appear in the earliest manuscripts. Let it be dis
carded, and Luke becomes the only authority for your
Ascension. Yet he did not witness it, and he is reputed
to have been a disciple of Paul, who did not witness it
�24
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
either. Second or third hand rumor is poor evidence
Of a miracle. At the very best, therefore, without
questioning (as I well might) that the third Gospel was
written by Luke in the first century, I have reduced
the authenticity of your Ascension to a vanishing
point. If it did occur, another miracle is necessary to
substantiate it, owing to the deficiencies of your bio
graphers. Why not repeat the performance ? You
Could do it publicly from an elevated position, com
manding a wide prospect, so that myriads might see it.
I would gladly act as your agent, and the gate money
would compensate me for my losses and sufferings in
probing these matters to the bottom.
Luke says that you ascended from Bethany, a short
distance from Jerusalem, on the very day of your
resurrection, or at the latest the next morning, Mark
is not precise as to the time, but he positively asserts
that you ascended from Galilee, which is at least sixty
miles from Jerusalem. Only God can be in two places
at the same time. If you were the deity you could
accomplish the feat, and in that case you might have
ascended from Bethany, Galilee, and fifty other places
at once. But I fail to see how your disciples could
have witnessed your Ascension at more than one point.
There is a very different story in the Acts of the
Apostles. According to the first chapter you appeared
to the eleven apostles (Judas having hung himself,
burst his bowels, or ratted) several times during forty
days. Finally, at Mount Olivet, in the midst of an
interesting little discourse, you were “ taken up,” and
<ca cloud received ” you “ out of their sight.” That is,
you were lost in a cloud, as they were, and all who have 1
since believed them.
I ask you whether, in common honesty, I can be
expected to believe in your Ascension on such contra
dictory authorities ? If the event really occurred, j
please tell me when and where. Was it on the day of
your Resurrection, or the next day, or forty days after ?
Was it at Jerusalem, at Bethany, at Mount Olivet, or
somewhere in Galilee ? I am willing to believe, but I
must have the event fixed in time and space. Surely
you will accede to this modest condition.
�the ascension.
25
According to the fourth Article of the Church of
England, which is fairly based on Scripture, you as
cended bodily, “ with flesh, bones, and all things ap*
pertaining to the perfection of Man’s nature.” Yet
Paul says that “flesh and blood cannot inherit th®
kingdom of heaven.” Mark asserts that you went
Straight up to heaven, and “ sat on the right hand of
God.” Subsequently you changed your position. When
the heavens obligingly opened to give Stephen a view
of 44 the glory of God,” he saw you standing on the
father’s right hand. But from the Article just referred
to it appears that you have taken to sitting again. Per
haps you vary your postures, like human beings when
they are tired. I wish you could vary them still further,
for th® alternation of sitting and standing must be very
monotonous, not to say fatiguing. What a pity your
heavenly upholstery does not include the luxurious
couches of the paradise of Mohammed.
If you actually sit or stand at the “ right hand of God,”
you and he must be local and finite ; nay, he must be
COganised like yourself. How does this accord with
his infinitude ? Heaven must also be local. Will you
Inform me where it is, or at least in what direction ?
How long did it take you to get there ? How did you
breathe in the interstellar ether ? Did you digest the
broiled fish and honeycomb on the way, or was the
process completed in heaven ? Have you taken any
food since, and if not, how is your body supported ?
Kindly answer these interesting questions when you
reply.
Let me also enquire how you travelled to heavsn ?
Did you go by balloon ? Did you sprout wings and
fly? Were you carried by angels? Did you climb
th® ladder which Jacob saw in his dream ? Or were
you conveyed by the fiery horses and chariot that took
Elijah to glory ?
Before your Ascension, according to John, you gave
your apostles the Holy Ghost ; not the whole of that
being, of course, but as much as they could entertain.
According to the Acts of the Apostles, however, they
were filled with the Holy Ghost” after your Ascen
sion. Is not this a contradiction ? Being already
I
�42S
LETTERS T0 JESUS CHRIST.
freighted, how could they take in a fresh cargo of the
Holy Ghost ?
Did you also, before your Ascension, utter..those ex
traordinary words in the last chapter of Mark ? Did
you say that all who believed the Gospel should cast
out devils, speak with new tongues, play with serpents,
and drink poison with impunity ? How is it that none
of your modern devotees can perform these feats ? I
heard of one lunatic at large who boasted such signs
of faith. H i nf or med me of his miraculous capacities
by letter, and wanted me to pay him a visit. Shrink
ing from such a dangerous enterprise, I requested him
to call at my office, where a few tests were provided,
but he never made his appearance. Can you produce
& single Christian who manifests any of the signs
which, according to your own declaration, should
“ follow them that believe ” ? Would the Archbishop
of Canterbury trust himself in the serpent-house of the
Zoological Gardens, with the door locked and all th®
cases open ? Would Mr. Spurgeon swallow a dose of
arsenic, prussic acid, or strychnine, if a sceptics mixed
the draught ? Only in one respect has your prediction
been fulfilled. Some of your disciples in the Salvation
Army, and in other revival bodies, do speak with
strange tongues, which are probably as intelligible to
themselves as they are to their neighbors. I infer,
therefore, that these are the only professing Christians
with a modicum of true belief.
According to Matthew (xxviii., 17), when yon
appeared to your apostles on a mountain in Galilee,
some believed, but “ some doubted.” If they were
sceptical with the evidence before them, my scepticism
cannot be heinous when I have nothing to trust to but
loose tradition and popular rumor. Your second
coming was foretold by yourself before your death,
and by two angels after your Ascension ; and the event
was to take place within the lifetime of many persons
of that generation. Such is the clear meaning of the
text, and it was so understood by the primitive Church.
“ The coming of the Lord draweth nigh,” exclaimed
James, while Paul taught that some who read his words
would be “ alive and remain unto the coining of the
�THE ASCENSION.
27
Lord,” when they would be caught up in the clouds to
meet the Lord in the air. Generation has followed
generation, yet you have not come. You are eighteen
centuries behind date. If the error was yours, what
reliance can be placed on the rest of your words ? If
it was your biographers’, how can we trust them with
respect to other incidents in your career ? Personally,
I can no more believe in your Ascension than I can
believe that Mohammed ascended to the third heaven
on the horse Borak, with a peacock’s tail and a woman’s
face. Both stories appear fabulous. Yet I am open to
conviction, and if you furnish me with the requisite
evidence I am ready to yield my assent. Were I to
yield it for any other reason, it would be credulity or
Slavishness on my part, and imposture or tyranny on
yours. I will not think you so dishonorable ; I cannot
imagine myself so base.
THE MIRACLES.
You still maintain an obstinate silence. Yet I recol
lect that you were always loth to answer embarrassing
questions. When on earth you evaded them, and now
you are in heaven you disregard them. Perhaps I
ought to relinquish my task, but as this is the last
letter I contemplate (at least for the present), I may as
well give it the same chance as the rest.
I shall address you in this letter on the subject of
your Miracles. They give your biography the air of
an Oriental romance, but do they add to the truth or
Utility of your doctrine ? Propositions that commend
themselves to our reason, and admonitions that find an
echo in our hearts, do not require the assistance of
miracles. There is always a presumption that state
ments and maxims which need such support are false,
because they are unable to stand upon their own
merits. Nor do miracles prove anything except the
�28
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
power of the worker. You yourself admitted that the
Devil could work them as well as the Deity. A being
who achieves what transcends my power may excite
my wonder, but he does not necessarily evoke my
respect. That sentiment can only be elicited by his
magnanimity and his benevolence. Still less does his
ipse dixit enable me to dispense with proof. He may
be powerful, but not omnipotent; wise, but not omni
scient. His knowledge in one direction may be
balanced by ignorance in another ; and even if omni
scient, he may be malignant, and bent on deceiving
me to my ruin.
Besides, the age when you lived on earth abounded
in miracles. They had no power to startle or surprise.
You were 44 carrying coals to Newcastle,” and there
was no market for your wonders. They absolutely
failed to impress the very people among whom they
occurred. Even in your private circle, they produced
such profound conviction, that your brethren held
aloof, and when you were arrested your disciples for
sook you and fled.
It is a curious fact that all your chief miracles are
variations on well-known miracles of the Old Testa
ment. Jehovah rebuked the Red Sea, and you rebuked
the waves of Gennesareth. The Jews crossed the river
Jordan dryshod, and you walked upon the lake of
Tiberias. Moses fed the people in the wilderness with
miraculous food, and you fed a multitude in the desert
by the same agency. Moses struck water out of a rock,
and you turned water into wine. Elisha made an iron
axe swim, and you kept Peter from sinking. The
same prophet cured leprosy, and so did you. Elijah
raised from death a widow’s son at Zarephath, and you
raised from death a widow’s son at Nain. Other
instances might be given, but these will suffice. Your
Miracles were not even original, and that at least should
be expected when God enters the lists in person.
Your Miracles are said to be beautiful and edifying.
Will you point out in what respect the cursing of the
barren fig-tree merits, the description ? You were
hungry, but it was not the season for figs, and to expect
fruit was an absurdity. Yet you cursed the tree for its
�THE MIBAOLES.
l
r
*
’ 11
I
'
fl.
29
regular habits, and it withered at your frown. Was
not the action childish and wilful ? Was it worthy of
a man, much less of a God ? Was it not a wanton
destruction of good property ? Might not the food it
produced have saved the life of a starving wretch, who
perished because you lost your temper ?
You fed thousands of people with five loaves and
two fishes. How was it done ? Was the miracle
achieved by their enthusiasm or your divinity ? Was
it anything more than a big imitation of Elisha’s feat
with the widow’s cruse of oil ? Did you create the
•extra bread and fish out of nothing, or did you instan
taneously grow the corn, grind, leaven and bake it, and
develope the ova into fresh fish, and artificially cook it ?
Why do you not repeat such a happy performance ?
Blight and famine occasion the miserable death of
millions of the human race in every decade, not to
mention those who die every year of slow starvation ;
yet you, who could supply their necessities without
impoverishing yourself, never lift a finger to save them.
When you were tempted in the wilderness by Old
Nick you refused to turn stones into scones. Did you
drink anything ? Were you able to anticipate Signor
Succi’s fluid? How did you feel during the forty
days’ fast ? Were you very fat before or very thin
after ? And how is it you fasted exactly the same
time as Moses ? You might surely have managed another day or two, for Moses was an old man, and you
were in the prime of life. What a pity you did not
-eclipse all record ! You have not even beaten Dr.
Tanner, and he was watched, which is more than can
be said of you.
While you were fasting you were also feasting, for
on the third day of the exhibition you were at a wed
ding party in Cana. This follows from the statements
of the first and the fourth of your biographers. I can
not reconcile them, but I must believe them both. If
I disbelieve Matthew I am lost; if I disbelieve John
I am damned. Lord, I believe ; help thou mine un
belief.
' This wedding party ran short of wine. It was time
to cease drinking, for the guests had evidently paid
�30
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
their due devotions to Bacchus. But, perhaps reflect
ing that it was a pity to spoil the spree for want of
liquor, you obligingly turned more than a hundred
and thirty-five gallons of water into wine, which was
probably enough to make them all blind drunk. How
Christians can be teetotallers after this passes my com
prehension. But that is their business. What I am
curious about is, how the miracle was done. Water
contains oxygen and hydrogen in definite proportions,
and nothing else. Wine contains these elements, and
also carbon and other ingredients, being in fact a com
plex mixture. How did you supplement the oxygen
and hydrogen ? Were the other constituents of wine
created on the spot ? And is it possible to make wine
by a swift chemical process ?
You cast devils out of people who, if science be true,
never possessed them. Miss Mary Magdalene was cured
of seven. What a nice young lady for a tea party,
especially if the seven came on at once ! You cast a
“ legion ” of devils out of one man, according to Mark
and Luke, or two men according to Matthew. The
demons entered the bodies of a herd of swine, and the
animals bolted into the sea. It was a pretty miracle,
but you forgot to pay for the pigs. Naturally, there
fore, the inhabitants sent a large deputation, desiring
you to move on, for it was obvious that if you remained
you would extinguish the pork trade. If you ever
think of repeating this miracle, pray do not attempt it
in Ireland. When you reply, kindly say if the devils
perished with the pigs.
Some of your miracles of healing may have been
due to excitement in the patients. Such tricks hath
strong imagination, that it can make healthy people sud
denly sick and sick people momentarily well. Para
lysed persons have been known to rise from their beds
on an alarm of fire. But leprosy is not a nervous dis
order. It results from the vitiation of all the fluids of
the body, and cannot be affected by imagination. Your
leprous patients were not even washed, like Captain
Naaman, who, by Elisha’s order, dipped seven times in
the Jordan. I cannot conceive how you cured them.
Yet you may have had hereditary skill in the treat
�THE MIRACLES.
31
ment of this disease, for your father Jehovah had a
great deal of practice in that line among the Jews.
Your method of curing blindness was very singular.
Clay plaster and spittle ointment were the chief arti
cles in your pharmacopoeia. I do not understand what
effect these compounds could have on disordered
optics, nor am I aware that any of the blind men you
restored to sight were examined, before and after the
miracle, by competent physicians. In any case, the
miracle was personal ; it began and ended with the
individual who was cured; it threw no light on the
general subject of blindness ; nor could it afford any
guidance to a single doctor, or any help to his patients.
Nay, your miracle is eclipsed every day in our hospi
tals, where skilful operations are performed for cata
ract, and total blindness is often cured without the
disgusting manoeuvre of spitting in the patients’ eyes.
When you cured that infirm Hebrew at the miracu
lous pool of Bethesda (which, by the way, was quite
unknown to Josephus and the Rabbis, and to all your
biographers except John), you said to him “ Sin no
more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.” Do you
really mean that disease is the result of personal sin ?
How, then, do you account for inherited disease ? Did
its victims sin in their mothers’ wombs ? Why also
is there so little disease in prisons, where there is more
sin to the square yard than anywhere else in the world ?
Besides healing diseases, you raised people from the
dead. I have already mentioned the widow’s son.
Another case was that of the ruler’s daughter. Mark
says that you strictly enjoined the spectators to tell no
man, while Matthew says it was famed abroad. Per
haps the injunction of secrecy was the best advertise
ment. The raising of Lazarus is only recorded by
John. It was the most startling and dramatic of your
Miracles, and according to John, it led to your Cruci
fixion. Yet it never reached the fairly-long ears of
Matthew, Mark, and Luke. That is a greater miracle
than the miracle itself.
What became of Lazarus after his resuscitation ?
Did he die again ? Did he relate his experiences
during the three days his body was entombed ? Why
�32
LETTERS TO JESUS CHRIST.
was he not produced at your trial ? And why, if the
miracle was notorious, did the priests and scribes con
spire against one who was stronger than Death ? Why
also are the persons who are raised from the dead
insignificant before, and unheard of after ? The
answer is obvious. Because if Homer and Shake
speare, Caesar and Cromwell, rose from the dead, they
would be expected to write and act according to their
genius and character.
You produced money from a fish’s mouth, but more
astonishing tricks are performed by modern conjurors.
Yet your walking on the water was a unique achieve
ment. It was imitated by Peter, but he needed your
assistance. Does faith, then, alter the specific gravity
of bodies ? What Christian has faith enough to de
monstrate it from the top of a fifty-foot ladder ?
Here I terminate my inquiries. I have said all I
wish to for the present. At some future time I may
address you another series of letters on your teachings
and influence. Meanwhile let me conclude by asking
why you took so much trouble to such little purpose.
You were born of a virgin, your career was full of
miracles, you allowed yourself to be crucified with
thieves, you rose from your tomb, and you ascended to
heaven. You did all this to redeem the world.
Eighteen centuries have elapsed, yet the world is not
redeemed. Poverty and vice, misery and disease, im
posture and superstition, tyranny and slavery, still
afflict the earth. Churches are built for your worship,
while poor men die in garrets and hovels ; and your
priests live in honor and luxury, while the genius
which is to enlighten and purify the world too often
languishes under penury and reproach. Civilisation
advances slowly from the impulsion of science and
humanity ; and while it moves forward, where are the
watchdogs of religion ? Biting in front or barking
behind, filling the earth with persecution and slander,
and showing their love of God by their hatred of Man.
Can any good come out of Nazareth ? was asked long
ago. With all sincerity I repeat the question and await
the answer.
�
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
Letters to Jesus Christ
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 32 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed and published by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Progressive Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1886
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N250
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 (Letters to Jesus Christ), 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
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/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/d31acd3356d87dc1d075acfc86995054.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=QYT88Q-OslMzdc3vMiPDEUYS5chWT9dftpv6owe88CMNOGbUcgnPFhlBONt-F6eJ5YzpRSuRuUoNtKspE80IlGiwgKXYYgZGbij1IJ0BpifUIsAZ7L0WtZioN2dwV6v-6OZIxPxQOMp-d96MBuE-QGkjTdbOJNw5Mw3A4ay0zSFeMZ1bZNUvuwc6oFvVL8fLhwtYDwOMjmTMy3xZVkNKUGEv53mvDJqua7er4IsDzgujI6643pL8pKsKkBGH5gzFM%7EDqs51KhPSzcgJr65ImdyPaIyHPw-ffbAdI20CrKsT4DMo-s888ze0iQUD51SAG7erc%7EQBm2oLxsAj5t7IChg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
88e882abba3a720845d07f9d22380bc8
PDF Text
Text
AGAINST HERO-MAKING
in BELiaion.
�AGAINST HERO-MAKING
IN
RELIGION.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.
REPRINTED BY PERMISSION, FOR PRIVATE CIRCULATION-
COPIES OF THIS PAMPHLET ARE SOLD BY TRUBNER &. CO.,
60 Paternoster Row.
LONDON:
-
PRINTED BY CHARLES W. REYNELL,
LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�“ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but Ministers by whom ye
believed? ”
“ Paul planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. Where
fore let no man glory in men."
“ We can do nothing against Truth, but for the Truth.”
“ Seek the Truth, and the Truth shall make you free.”
�AGAINST HERO-MAKING
IX RELIGION.
OR more than twenty years we have been made
familiar with the phrase Hero-Worship. It has
been applied not only in the regions of politics and
literature, but in religion, as the phrase itself strictly
claims. We have been told, from very opposite
quarters, that the excellence, as well as the charac
teristic, of the Christian religion turns on its
venerating a personal hero in Jesus of Nazareth.
Many who regard Jesus as a mere man, yet insist
upon inscribing themselves his servants and followers,
and on so wedding their honour for him with their
adoration to God most high, as systematically to
incorporate the two. Nay, some who utterly disown
allegiance to Jesus—who think him to have taught
many things erroneously, and to have had nothing
supernatural in his character, in his powers, in his
knowledge, in his virtue, in his birth, or in his com
munications with God-—still maintain that he is fitly
called the Regenerator of mankind, and ought to
receive—I know not what acknowledgment—as our
Saviour. It appears then not superfluous to bestow
a little space on the treatment of this question.
F
�6
Against Hero-Making
I need hardly observe that personal qualities alone
in no case constitute a hero. Action and success
must be added; and action cannot succeed until the
times are ripe. No one knows this better than the
true hero. True genius is modest in self-apprecia
tion, and is fully aware how many other men could
have achieved the same results if the same rare con
juncture of circumstances had presented itself to
them. Men of genius are fewer than common men,
but they are no accident. God has provided for
their regular and continuous recurrence ; their birth
is ordinary and certain in every nation which is
counted by millions. The same is true in every form
of mental pre-eminence, whether capacity for leader
ship, or genius for science, or religious and moral
susceptibility. Religion, separate from morals, is, of
course, only fanaticism. We venerate religion only
when built upon pure morals. Moral religion is
notoriously a historic growth, and has depended on
traditional culture at least as much as what is
especially called science; and its progress is not
more wayward and arbitrary than that of science, if
the whole of human history be surveyed. The present
is ever growing out of the past, with a vigour and a
certainty which never allow the fortunes of the race
to be seriously dependent on any individual. Each
of us is, morally as well as physically, a birth out of
antecedents. From childhood we are tutored in right
and wrong, not only by professed teachers, but by all
elder persons who are around us. Improper deeds
or words of a child are reproved by a servant, or by
�In Religion.
7
an elder brother, or even by a stranger, as well as by
a parent or a priest. We imbibe moral sentiment,
as it were, at every pore of our moral nature; nor do
we often know from whom we learned to abhor this
course of conduct and to love that. Hence no wise
man will claim originality for his moral judgments
or religious sentiments. A foolish dogma, a fanciful
tenet, may easily be original; but a pure sound truth
is more likely to have been old. To prove its novelty
is impossible, and certainly could not recommend it:
on the contrary, the older we can prove it to have
been, the greater its ostensible authority. For these
reasons, in the theory of morals and religion, a claim
of originality can seldom or never be sustained: in
this whole field the question is less what a man has
taught, than what he has persuaded others. Hun
dreds of us may have said, truly and wisely : “ It is
a great pity that Mahommedans, Jews, and Christians
of every sect will not unlearn their dissensions, and
blend into one religious community.” The sentiment
must once have been even new; yet its utterance
could never have earned praise and distinction.
But if any one devoted his life to bring about such
union, and succeeded in it, we should undoubtedly
regard him as a moral hero; though (as just said) no
one could succeed, until the fulness of time arrived
and the crisis was seized judiciously.
Thus, in discussing the claims put forth for special
and indeed exclusive honour to the name of Jesus, we
have to consider, not so much what he said, or is said
to have said, as what he effected; what impression
�Against Hero-Making
he actually produced by his life and teaching; what
great, noble, abiding results his energies originated
and bequeathed. The moment we ask, What are the
facts ? we seem to be plunged into waves of most
uncertain controversy; into discussions of literature
unsuitable for short treatment. Yet, I may with full
propriety claim as admitted that which greatly clears
our way. I presume you to know familiarly, that
the picture of Jesus in the fourth gospel is essentially
irreconcilable with that in the three which precede,
and is neither trustworthy nor credible. The three
first gospels, taken by themselves, do present a
character, a moral picture, sufficiently self-consistent
and intelligible to reason about. But our present
question (allow me carefully to insist) is not, Do we
see in Jesus a remarkable man, a gifted peasant, a
dogmatist by whom we may profit, whose noble
sentiments we may admire or applaud ? but rather,
Do we find one who dwarfs all others before and
after him ? one to whose high superiority sages and
prophets must bow; before whom it is reasonable
and healthful for those who have a hundredfold of
his knowledge and breadth of thought to take the
place of little children ? Or, at least, Has Europe
and the world (as a fact) learned from him what it
was not likely to learn without him ? Is that true
which is dinned into our ears, that Christendom has
imbibed from him a pure, spiritual, large-hearted,
universal religion, adapted to man as man, cementing
mankind as a family, and ennobling the individual
by a new and living Spirit, unknown to the philoso
�In Religion.
g
phies, unknown, to the priesthoods, untaught by the
prophets, before him ?
Even if we had no insight as to the comparative
value of the several gospels, one broad certainty
affords solid ground to plant the foot upon. The
positive institutions and active spirit of the • first
Christian Church are notorious and indubitable. On
learning what the Apostles established in their
Master’s name within a few weeks of his death, we
know with full certainty what they had understood him
to teach, what impression he actually produced, what
was the real net result of his life and preaching: and
this, in fact, is our main question. Now, it is true
beyond dispute—it is conceded by every sect of
Christians—that in the first Christian Church the
Levitical ceremonies were maintained with zealous
rigour, and that its only visible religious peculiarity
consisted in community of goods. The candidate for
baptism professed no other creed but that Jesus was
Messiah; and the obedience of the disciple to the Mas
ter was practically manifested in the sudden renuncia
tion of private property. This ordinance was not, in
theory, compulsory, but, while the fervour of faith was
new, it was enforced by the public opinion of the
Church so sharply, as to tempt the richer disciples
to hypocrisy. The story of Ananias and Sapphira is
full of instruction. They did not wish to alienate all
their goods, though they were willing to be very
liberal. Tn deference to the prevailing sentiment,
they sold property and gave largely to the Church:
yet were guilty of keeping back a part for themselves
�IO
Against Hero-Making
secretly. For this fraud (according to the legend)
they were both struck dead at the voice of Peter!
Such a legend could not have arisen, except in a
Church which regarded absolute Communism as the
characteristic Christian virtue. Higher proof is not
needed that Jesus established this duty as the touch
stone of discipleship : but, in fact, the account in the
three gospels tallies herewith perfectly. Jesus there
mourns over a rich young man, as refusing the law of
perfection, because he hesitates to sell all his goods,
give them to the poor, and become a mendicant friar.
When his disciples, commenting on the young man’s
failure to fulfil the test, say : “ Lo ! we have left all
and followed thee : what shall we have therefore ? ”
Jesus in reply promises, that, in reward for having
sacrificed to him the gains of their industry and
abandoning their relatives, they shall sit upon thrones,
and judge the twelve tribes of Israel. (In passing I
remark, that the idea of such a reward for such a deed
is shocking to a Pauline Christian.)
The Jerusalem Church was, alone of all Churches,
founded by the chosen representatives of Jesus on
the doctrine of Jesus himself, while the remembrance
of that doctrine was fresh. It was a special com
munity, not unlike a “religious order” of modern
Europe ; and could not be discriminated, by Jews any
more than by Romans, from a Jewish sect. In the
next century, those who seem to have been its direct
successors were called Ebionite heretics by the
Gentile Christians. When Paul, who ostentatiously
refused to learn anything from the actual hearers of
�In Religion.
11
Jesus, had put forth what he calls “ his own ” gospel
—namely, “the mystery that Gentiles were to be
fellow-heirs ” without Levitical purity—he brought on
himself animosity and violent opposition from the
Christians of Jerusalem, who were the historical fruit
of Jesus’ own planting. When Paul was in Jerusalem,
one of the leaders called his attention to the fact that,
while many thousands of Jews were believers, they
were “ all zealous of the law ; ” he therefore advised
him to pacify their misgivings and suspicions of him,
by performing publicly certain Judaical ceremonies.
Paul obeyed him : nevertheless, no such conformities
could atone for his offence in teaching that Gentiles,
while free from the law, were equal to the Jews before
God; and Paul to his last day experienced enmity
from the zealous members of that Church. His rela
tions to the other Apostles we know by his own
account to have been certainly cold. He seems to be
personally pointed at in the Epistle of James, as “ a
vain man,” who preaches faith without works ; while
he himself (as he tells us) publicly attacked Peter at
Antioch as a dissembler and weak truckler to Jeru
salem bigotry. When, from first to last, the doctrine
of the Church at Jerusalem was sternly Levitical, it
is quite incredible that Jesus ever taught his disci
ples the religious nullity of Levitical ceremonies and
the equality of Gentiles with Jews before God. But
why need I argue about this, when it is distinctly
clear on the face of the narrative ? In the book of
Acts the idea that “ God is no respecter of persons ”
—or of nations—breaks upon the mind of Peter as a
a
�12
Against Hero-Making
new revelation, and is said to have been imparted by
a special vision. It is not pretended that Jesus had
taught it; nor does Paul, in any of his controversies
against Judaism, dare to appeal to the authority and
doctrine of the earthly Jesus as on his side. In fact,
in the Sermon on the Mount, as also in a passage of
Luke (xvi. 17), Jesus declares that he is not come to
destroy the law; and that “ Rather shall heaven and
earth pass away, than shall one tittle of the law fail.”
I am, of course, aware that Christian theologians
would have us believe that Luke is here defective,
and that the words in Matthew, “ Until all be ful
filled,” mean “ Until my death shall fulfil all the
types'’ But this would make Jesus purposely to
deceive his disciples by a riddle. This is indeed
worse than trifling, and a gratuitous imputation on
the teacher’s truthfulness. He must have known
how he was understood. They supposed him to mean
that Levitism was eternal; and he did not correct
the impression. It was then the very impression,
which he designed to make, simply and truthfully;
and the disciples, one and all, rightly understood
him, and knew it well.
The verse which follows in Matthew clenches the
argument; although (I see I must in candour add) I
do not believe that Jesus spoke it in exactly this
form. Nevertheless, it emphatically shows how the
writer interpreted the verse preceding. For he makes
Jesus to add: “ Wherefore, whosoever shall break
one of these least commandments, and shall teach
men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of
�In Religion.
heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the
same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
I find myself unable to doubt that these words were
written to mean: “ Wherefore, one like Paul, who
breaks the Levitical ceremonies, and teaches the
Gentiles to break them, is least in my kingdom; but
James, and the Apostles in Jerusalem, who do and
teach them, are great in my kingdom.” The inten
sity of feeling on this subject was such, that the
Jewish Christians easily believed Jesus to have pro
phetically warned them against Paul’s error. Be this
as it may, the formula, “ break one of these least com
mandments, and teach men to break it,” is in con
trast to “ fulfilling the law,” and distinctly shows
that “ fulfilling the law ” refers to doing and enforcing
even the least commandments.
The Jerusalem Church was the product (and, as
far as we know, the only direct product) of the
teachings of Jesus. Of its sentiment we have an
interesting exhibition in the epistle of James; in
whom we see a high and severe moralist, pure and
exacting, full of righteous indignation against the
oppression of the poor by the rich, and against all
haughtiness of wealth. He does not treat all private
property as unchristian; but only large property..
Evidently no rich man could have seemed venerable
to the chief saints in that Church. He assumes the
guilt of all rich men, and announces misery about to
come on them, as does Jesus in the parable of
Lazarus: nevertheless, in him all the harshest parts
of Jesus’ precepts have been softened by the trial of
�Against Hero-Making
practical life. In fact, this epistle is much in the tone
of the very noblest of the Hebrew prophets. As with
them, so in him, the moral element is wholly predo
minant, and nothing ceremonial obtrudes itself. Nay,
what is really remarkable, he calls his doctrine the
|‘ perfect law of liberty; ” so little did those ceremo
nies oppress him, to which from childhood he had
been accustomed. Let due honour be given to this
specimen of the first and only genuine Christianity ;
yet it is difficult to find anything that morally dis
tinguishes it from the teachings of an Isaiah or a
Joel. There is certainly a diversity: for the political
elements of thought have disappeared, which under
the Hebrew monarchy were prominent. The great
day of the Lord was no longer expected to glorify the
royalty of Jerusalem and its national laws: and in
this diversity lay the germ of great changes.
It would be absurd to censure an epistle because it
is not a ritual, or to demand in it the fervours of
spirituality found in this or that psalm. Nevertheless,
in the present connection, I must claim attention to
the fact that neither the three Gospels nor the epistle
of James have ever been in high favour with that
Calvinistic or Augustinian school which most nearly
represents Paul to the moderns. To bring out the
argument in hand more clearly, allow me to make a
..short digression. Morality requires both action and
.sentiment. No reasonable teacher can undervalue
^either: yet some moral teachers press more on action,
and are said to preach duty and work I and even make
sa duty of sentiment, laying down as a command that
�In Religion.
we shall love God, love our neighbours, love not ease,
love not self. Other teachers endeavour to excite,
foster, and develop just sentiment, and trust that it
will generate just action: possibly they even run
into the error of shunning definite instruction as to
what action is good. Finite and one-sided as we are,
two schools naturally grow up among teachers, who
may be classed as the preachers of duty and the
preachers of sentiment: but perhaps, if the question
be distinctly proposed to the ablest men of either
school, “ Do we learn action from sentiment, or senti
ment from action ?” they would alike reply (as in
substance does Aristotle) that both processes neces
sarily co-exist. From childhood upward, right action
promotes right feeling, and right feeling generates
or heightens right action. There is no real or just
collision of the two schools. Nevertheless, as a fact
of human history easily explained, the preaching of
duty and of outward action gains everywhere an early
and undue ascendancy, perhaps especially where
morals and religion are taught by law, which deals
in command and threat. The rude man and the
child are subjected to rule more or less arbitrary;
and it is only when intellect rises in a nation or in
an individual that the spiritual side of morals receives
its proportionate attention. In Greek history, we
know the fact in the philosophy of Socrates and
Plato. Among the Hebrews, a secular increase of
spirituality in the highest teachers will probably be
conceded by critics of every school to have gone on
from the time of the judge Samuel to the writer from
�i6
Against Hero-Making
whom came the last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah.
The characteristic difference of the Greek and the
Hebrew is this: that, however spiritual the Greek
morality might be, it seldom blended with religion ;
and (with exceptions perhaps only to be found under
Hebrew influences, as at Alexandria) the moral affec
tions found no place in religion at all. Now it has
been recently asserted by a Theist, that it is to Jesus
that we owe that regeneration of religion, which
makes it begin and grow from within. He is not (it
is said) “ a mere teacher of pure ethics but “ his
work has been in the lieart. He has transformed the
Law into the Gospel. He has changed the bondage
of the alien for the liberty of the sons of God. He
has glorified virtue into holiness, religion into piety,
and duty into love.” Hence it is inferred that “ his
coming was to the life of humanity what regeneration
is to the life of the individual.”*
Deep as is my sympathy with the writer from
whom I quote, I am constrained to say that every
part of the statement appears to me historically
incorrect. It does, in the first place, violent injustice
to the Hebrews who preceded Jesus. Did he first
“ glorify virtue into holiness” ? Nay, from the very
beo’inninp’ of Hebraism this was done—at least as
o
o
* I quote from the striking treatise of my friend Miss Cobbe, called
“Broken Lights.” The whole protest against M. Renan, of which the
words above are the summary, should be read to understand their rela
tion. I am authorized to say that she has not even the remotest wish to
make honour to Jesus a part of religion: she intended to write as a
historian only.
�In Religion.
early as Samuel. Did he first “ glorify religion into
piety” ? Is there then no piety in the 42nd Psalm?
in the 63rd ? in the 27th ? in the 23rd ? Nay,
I might ask; from what utterances of Jesus can
piety be learned by the man who cannot learn it from
the Psalms ? Holiness and piety appear to me to
have been taught and exemplified quite as effectively
before Jesus as since. Surely in the religion of the
Psalmists piety dominated, as much as in Fenelon or
in the poet Cowper. But finally I have to ask, 11 Did
Jesus glorify duty into love ?” And, in order to
reply, I turn to the three gospels, as containing our
best account of what he taught.
A phenomenon there very remarkable is the
severity with which Jesus enforces as duty the most
painful renunciations ; and the contempt with which
he rejects anything short of immediate obedience to
his arbitrary demands. I know not whether the
narrators have overcoloured him; but they give us,
on the one side, examples of prompt obedience to the
command, “Follow me first, in Andrew and Peter,
next, in James and John ; who “immediately left the
ship and their father, and followed him.” This is
afterwards praised as highly meritorious. On the
other side, when Jesus says to a man, “ Follow me,”
and receives the reply, “ Lord, suffer me first to go
and bury my father,” Jesus retorts : “ Let the dead
bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom
of God. Another also said, Lord, I will follow thee,
but let me first go and hid them farewell which are at
home in my house. And Jesus said unto him, No
�18
Against Hero-Making
man, having put his hand to the plough and looking
back, is fit for the kingdom of God.” The peremp
tory command to abandon their parents, not bury a
dead father, and not even say a word of farewell to
the living, is perhaps a credulous exaggeration of the
writer; yet it is in close harmony with the whole
account, and with the declaration, “ He that hateth
not his father and mother, and wife and children,
cannot be my disciplefor evidently the following
of Jesus, as interpreted and enforced by himself,
involved an abandonment (perhaps to starvation) of
these near relatives. It is not my purpose to dwell
now on the right or wrong of such precepts, but on
the imperious tone in which they are imposed from
without, not the slightest attempt being made to
recommend them to the heart or understanding.
Again, in perfect harmony with the same is the reply,
already adduced, of Jesus to the rich young man,
Xvho comes to ask, “ What shall I do that I may
inherit eternal life ?” The opportunity was excellent
to set forth that no outward actions could bring
eternal life, but that such life was an interior and
divine state, to be sought by love and faithfulness.
Instead of spiritual instruction, Jesus gives a crushing
arbitrary command: “ If thou wilt be perfect, go,
sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in heaven ; and come and follow
me.” Does such a teacher build from within by
implanting Love ? Does he act upon Love at all, or
rather on selfish Ambition ? He deals in hard duty
and fierce threat; commands too high, and motives
�In Religion.
l9
too low; thoughts of reward; promises of power ;
salvation by works ; investment of money for returns
beyond the grave; prudential adoption of virtue,
which may soften judgment, win promotion, deliver
from prospective prison and hell fire: topics which at
best are elements of Law, as opposed to Gospel.
In the opinion of an increasing fraction of the most
enlightened Christians, the most noxious element in
the popular creed is the eternal Hell: the stronghold
of this doctrine is in the discourses of Jesus. But
what of Faith ? If Faith be a purely spiritual move
ment, which cleaves to Goodness and Truth for its
own sake, and without regard to selfish interests, it is
hard to say in what part of the three gospels it is
found. In the mind of Jesus all actions seem to
stand in the closestrelation to the thoughts of punish
ment or reward on a great future day. To lose one’s
soul means, to be sentenced when that day shall
come: cutting off a sin means, escaping mutilated
from a future hell. In a religion practically moulded
on these discourses, calculation of what we shall
hereafter get by present obedience inheres as a primary
essence. The only faith which Jesus extols, is, faith to
work miracles, and faith that he is Messiah and can
work them. Inquiry is frowned down and sighed over
as unbelief. Power to forgive sin is claimed by him;
and, when this is reproved as impious in a human
teacher, the claim is marvellously justified by
identifying forgiveness with cure of bodily disease.
Add to this the grant of miraculous powers to the
Seventy, and a delegation of power to forgive is
�20
Against Hero-Making
made out at which Protestants may well shudder.
In another place (Luke vii. 4, 5) Jesus declares
forgiveness of sin to be earned by personal affection
to himself; but I am bound to add that, on special
*
grounds, I do not believe the account.
Luke has in some parts added softer touches to
Jesus, and gives us two fine parables which it is
astonishing that Matthew and Mark omit, while they
retail so many that are monotonous : yet even in Luke
I seek in vain for anything calculated to implant in
the heart a sense of freedom; to excite willing
service ; or to cherish spiritual desire, gratitude and
tranquil love, careless of other reward than love itself.
In fact, Luke is sometimes harsher than Matthew.
Thus, in vi. 20, “ Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the
* The narrative in Luke vii. 37—50 seems to be an inaccurate duplicate
of that in Matt, xxvi, 6, Mark xiv. 3, John xii. 3; which nearly agree as
to time and place—viz., it was in Bethany, a little before the last Passover.
Matthew and Mark say, it was in the house of Simon the leper; Luke
says, of Simon the Pharisee. John calls the woman Mary of Bethany,
sister of Lazarus and of Martha: Luke sayB, a woman notorious for sin.
I will here remark, that discussion on the behaviour of Jesus to women
of ill fame, which is called “delicate,” “beautiful,” “characteristic,” &c.
appears to me wholly without basis of fact. Those who allow no historical
character to the discourses in John will not quote John iv. 16—-19, nor
John viii. 1—11, against this remark: and nothing remains but Luke vii.
■37—50. The fair fame of Mary Magdalene has been blasted by believing
this story in Luke, and then identifying her with the woman.
I will add that many who must know- seem to forget, that no Greek
philosopher—neither an Anaxagoras nor a Zeno, to say nothing of
Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca—would ever have felt crude or
unjust severity towards a woman’s faults. If English sentiment some
times appear harsh against women who have made a trade of themselves,
is it not because sins which are gainful to the sinner are more inveterate
and more contagious than sins which impoverish him ?
�In Religion.
21
kingdom of God. Blessed are ye that hunger now, for
ye shall be filled. . . But woe unto you that are rich ;
for ye have recei/oed your consolation. Woe unto you
that are full; for ye shall hunger. Woe unto you
that laugh now; for ye shall mourn and weep.” So
indiscriminate and thoughtless are devotees, that
such doctrine meets with the same theoretic glorifi
cation as the essentially different version of Matthew:
“ Blessed are the poor in spirit. . . Blessed are ye
who hunger and thirst after righteousness.” If
Matthew be correct and Luke wrong, Luke has
foisted upon Jesus curses against rich and mirthful
men, in contrast to the blessings on poverty and
weeping: but if the curses came from the lips of
Jesus, Luke gives the opposite clauses justly; in
which case Matthew has improved monkish into
spiritual sentiment. It would be a hard task to prove
Luke’s version out of harmony with the constant
doctrines of Jesus. To borrow Calvinistic phrase
ology, and (if my memory serves me) the very words of
a Pauline spiritualist: “ The three gospels may be read
in the churches till doomsday, without converting a
single soul.” The spiritual side of Christianity,
inherited from the Hebrew psalmists, not from Jesus,
was diffused beyond Judaaa, first by the Jewish
synagogues, next by the school of Paul, to whom the
school of Jesus was in fixed opposition, preaching
Works and the Law, while Paul preached the Spirit
and Faith. “ Though I give all my goods to feed the
poor,” says Paul, “ and give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, I am nothing.” How vast the
�22
Against Hero-Making
contrast here to the doctrine of Jesus: “ Every one
that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or
father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands for
my name’s sake, shall receive a hundredfold, and
shall inherit eternal life." To make ascetic sacrifices
for the honour of Jesus was indeed a surpassing merit
in his eyes, unless the most important discourses,
even in these three gospels, extravagantly belie him.
I am unable to discover on what just ground the
opinion stands that the character of Jesus is less
harsh, and his precepts less sourly austere than those
of John the Baptist. Little as we are told of the
latter (all of which is honourable), the two must have
had close similarities. Let it be remembered that
Apollos is spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles as
“ instructed in the way of the Lord, and fervent in
spirit, and teaching diligently the things of the Lord,"
while he “ knew only the baptism of John.” So also
Paul falls in with “ certain disciples ” at Ephesus,
who pass as Christians; yet he presently discovers
that they also know only John’s baptism. It seems
therefore evident, that the two schools had nothing
essential to divide them, and were intimately alike.
When, on the othef hand, the sharp opposition of the
Pauline doctrine to that of James and the church of
Jesus at Jerusalem is duly estimated, some may
think that certain words put into the mouth of John
the Baptist will become less untrue if changed as
follows : “ I indeed and Jesus baptize you with water
unto repentance and poverty; but Paul shall baptize
you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.” Be that as
�In Religion.
23
it may—give as little weight as you please to Paul’s
strong points—press as heavily as you will on his
weak side, out of which came the worst part of Calvin
ism—the fact remains, that Jesus did not teach
Christianity to the Gentiles, or declare them admis
sible to his church without observing Mosaism; and
that to the Jews themselves he preached merely
severe precepts, ethical or monkish, with a minimum
of what can be called Gospel;—precepts, on which a
religious order might be founded, but totally unsuit
able for a world-wide religion.
When people calmly tell me that Jesus first
established the brotherhood of man, the equality of
races, the nullity of ceremonies; that he overthrew
the narrowness of Judaism; that he found a national,
but left a universal religion ; found a narrow-minded
ceremonial, and originated a spiritual principle, I can
do nothing but reply that every one of these state
ments is groundless and contrary to fact. What his
disciples never understood him to teach, he certainly
did not teach effectually. It is childish to reply that
the fault lay in the stupidity of the twelve Apostles.
What! could not Jesus speak as plainly as Paul did?
Surely, the more stupid the hearer, the more plainly
the teacher is bound to speak. If Jesus had so
spoken, never could want of spirituality in the hearer
have made the words unintelligible. Did only the
spiritual understand Paul when he proclaimed the
overthrow of ceremonies ? Could the most stupid of
mortals have failed to understand Jesus also, if he
had avowed that the Levitical ordinances were a
�24
Against Hero-Making
nullity and Gentiles the religious equals of Jews ? I
may seem to insult men’s intellect by pressing these
questions ; but do not they rather insult our intellect ?
For they would have us believe Jesus to have
originated doctrines which are the very opposite of
all that his actual hearers and authorized expounders
established as his, before there was time for his
teaching to fade from their memory, and to be modi
fied by novelties supervening.
I have called the primitive church of Jerusalem
the only direct product of Jesus. Do I deny that
Jesus bore any part at all in setting up the creed
known in Europe as Christianism ? I wish I could
wholly deny it. Gladly would I relieve his memory
of all responsibility for dogmas, whence proceed far
more darkness and weakness of mind, confusion,
bitterness, and untractable enmities, than his moral
teaching can ever dispel; dogmas which as effect
ually break up good men into hostile sects, with fixed
walls of partition between them, as ever did the
ceremonialism which he is falsely imagined to have
destroyed. But, hard as it is to know how much of
the gospels is historical, I suppose that no one for
three centuries at least has doubted that Jesus
avowed himself to be Messiah, at first privately, at
last ostentatiously; and was put to death for the
avowal. If so much be historical, we are on firm
ground. There is then no room for transcendental
philosophies and imaginative theories, as to what
authority and honour Jesus was claiming. The Jews
of that day familiarly understood that Messiah was
�In Religion.
^5
to be a Prince from Heaven, who should rule and
judge on earth. As to the great outlines of his
character and power, manifestly there was no dispute.
If the popular notions on this subject were wrong, the
first business with Jesus must have been to set them
right. But he never discourses against them, nor
shows alarm lest he be thought to claim super
natural dignity and lordship: nor could his ridingtriumphantly on the ass, amid shouts of “ Hosanna
to the Son of David ! ” have been intended to dis
courage the belief that he was to exercise temporal
as well as spiritual royalty. The learned and the
vulgar were in full agreement that Messiah was to be
a supreme Prince and Teacher to Israel, Judge and
Lord of all nations: but the rulers regarded it as
impious, criminal, and treasonable to aspire to this
dignity while unable to exhibit some miraculous
credentials. The fixed belief concerning Messiah
was gathered, not only from our canonical prophets
but also from the book called “ The Wisdom of
Solomon” (which was in the Greek Bible of
Paul and other Hellenist Jews), and still more
vividly from the book of Enoch, which Jude
and Peter quote reverentially, and Jude ascribes
to the prophet Enoch, the seventh from Adam.
With the discovery of that book early in this
century a new era for the criticism of Christianity
ought to have begun; for it is evidently the most
direct fountain of the Messianic creed. The book
of Mormon does not stand alone as a manifest
fiction which had power to generate a new religion ;
�q.6
Against Hero-Making
the book of Enoch is a like marvellous exhibition of
human credulity. A recent German critic has given
the following summary of its principal contents :—
“ It not only comprizes the scattered allusions of the
Old Testament in one grand picture of unspeakable
bliss, unalloyed virtue, and unlimited knowledge : it
represents the Messiah as both King and Judge of the
world, who has the decision over everything on earth
and in heaven. He is the Son of Man who possesses
righteousness; since the God of all spirits has elected
him, and since he has conquered all by righteousness
in eternity. He is also the Son of God, the Elected
one, the Prince of Righteousness. He is gifted with
that wisdom which knows all secret things. The
Spirit in all its fulness is poured out upon him. His
glory lasts to all eternity. He shares the throne of
God’s majesty: kings and princes will worship him,
and will invoke his mercy.”* So much from the book
of Enoch; which undoubtedly was widely believed
among the contemporaries of Jesus. How much of
the self-glorifying language put into the mouth of
Jesus was actually uttered by him it is impossible to
know. There is always room for the opinion that
only later credulity ascribed this and that to him—
that (for instance) he did not really speak the para
ble about the sheep and goats, representing himself
as the Supreme Judge who awards heaven or hell to
every human soul. But it remains, that this parable
* I quote from a summary of the book of Enoch by the German
theologian Kalisch, given in Bishop Colenso’s Appendix to his 4th
volume on the Pentateuch.
�In Religion.
*7
distinctly shows the nature of the dignity which Jesus
was supposed to claim in calling himself Son of Man ;
and, even if we arbitrarily pare away from his dis
courses this and other details in deference to Unitarian
surmise, we still cannot get rid of what pervades the
-whole narrative, that Jesus from the beginning’
adopted a tone of superhuman authority and obtru
sion of his own personal greatness, with the title
“ Son of Man,” allusive both to Daniel and to the
book of Enoch. According to Daniel, one like unto
a Son of Man will come in the clouds of heaven to
receive eternal dominion over all nations. It is im
possible to doubt, that, in the mind of those to whom
Jesus spoke, the character of Messiah implied an
overshadowing supremacy, a high leadership over
Israel, and hereby over the Gentiles, who were to
come and sit at Israel’s feet: a religious and, as it
were, princely pre-eminence, which only one mortal
could receive, who by it was raised immeasurably
above all others. If he did not intend to claim this,
it was obviously his first duty to disclaim it, and to
warn all against false, dangerous, or foolish concep
tions of Messiah ; to protest that Messiah was only a
teacher, not a prince, not a divine lawgiver, not a
supreme judge sitting on the throne of God and dis
posing of men’s eternal destinies. Nay, why claim
the title Messiah at all, if it could only suggest false
hood ? Since he sedulously fostered the belief that
he was Messiah, without attempting to define the
term, or guide the public mind, he could only be
understood, and must have wished to be understood,
�Against Hero-Making
to present himself as Messiah in the popular, notorious
sense. If he was really this, honour him as such. If
his claim was delusive, he cannot be held guiltless.
Every high post has its own besetting sin, which
must be conquered by him who is to earn any admi
ration. A finance minister, who pilfers the treasury,
can never be honoured as a hero, whatever the merits
of his public measures. A statesman or prince,
entrusted with the supreme executive power, ruins
his claims to veneration if he use that power violently
to overthrow the laws. Such as is the crime of a.
statesman who usurps a despotism, such is the guilt
of a religious teacher who usurps lordship over the
taught and aggrandizes himself. It is a bottomless
gulf of demerit, swallowing up all possible merit, and
making silence concerning him our kindest course, if
only his panegyrists allow us to be silent. A teacher
who exalts himself into our Lord and Saviour and.
Judge, leaves to his hearers no reasonable choice
between two extremes of conduct. Whoso is not
with him is against him. For we must either submit
frankly to his claims, and acknowledge ourselves
little children—abhor the idea of criticizing him or
his precepts, and in short become morally annihilated,
in his presence—or, on the opposite, we cannot help
seeing him to have fallen into something worse than,
ignominy.
I digress to remark, that a teachei’ supposed by us
to be the infallible arbiter of our eternity would detain
our minds for ever in a puerile state if he taught dog
matically, not to say imperiously. If he aimed to
�In Religion.
•
29
elicit our own powers of judgment, and not to crush
us into submissive imbecility, the method which
Socrates carried to an extreme appears alone suited
to the object; namely, to refrain from expressing his
own decisions, but lay before the hearers the material
of thought half-prepared, and claim of them to com
bine it into some conclusion themselves. 'In fact, this
is fundamentally the mode in which the Supremely
Wise, who inhabits this infinite world, trains our
minds and souls. His greatness does not oppress our
faculties, because it is ever silent from without.
Displaying before us abundantly the materials of
judgment, he elicits our powers ; never commanding
us to become little children, but always inviting our
minds to grow up into manhood. But, if there were
also an opposite side of teaching healthful to us—if
it were well to start from dogmas guaranteed to us
from heaven, which it is impiety to canvas—then the
matter of first necessity would be, that the uttered
decrees to which we are to submit should be free
from all enigma, all extravagance of hyperbole, all
parable, dark allusion, and hard metaphor, all appa
rent self-contrariety; and, moreover, that we should
have no uncertainty what were the teacher’s precise
words, no mere mutilated reports and inconsistent
duplicates, but a reliable genuine copy of every
utterance on which there is to be no criticism. Ta
sum up, I will say: nothing can be less suited io
minister. the Spirit and train the powers of the human
soul, than to be subject to a superhuman dictation of
truth ; and nothing could be more unlike a divine law
�3°
Against Hero-Making
0/ the letter (admitting for a moment the possibility
of the thing), than the incoherent, hyperbolic, enig
matic, inconsistent fragments of discourses given to
us authoritatively as teachings of Jesus.
But I return to my main subject. I have shown
what conclusions seem inevitable, so soon as we cease
to believe that Jesus is the celestial Prince Messiah
of the book of Enoch, popularly expected in his day.
To. lay stress on his possession of this or that gentle
and beautiful virtue is quite away from the purpose.
Let it be allowed that Luke has rightly added this
and that soft touch to the picture in Matthew and
Mark. Let it be granted that the nobler as well as
the baser side of the Jerusalem Church came direct
from Jesus himself. Whether any of the actual
virtues of European Christians have been kindled
from fires which really burnt in Jesus, it appears to
me impossible to know. The heart of Paul gushed
with the tenderest and warmest love, and he believed
Christ to be its source. But the Christ whom he
loved to glorify was not the Christ of our books,
which did not yet exist; nor a Christ reported to him
by the Apostles, to whom he studiously refused to
listen; but the Christ whom he made out in the Mes
sianic Psalms, in parts of Isaiah, in the apocryphal
book called Wisdom, and perhaps also in the book of
Enoch. With such sources of meditation and infor
mation open, the personal and bodily existence of
Jesus was thought superfluous by a number of
Christians considerable enough to earn denunciations
in the epistles of John. A great and good man,
�In Religion.
3i
Theodore Parker, tells me that it would take a Jesus
to invent a Jesus. I reply, that, though to invent a
Jesus was undoubtedly difficult, to colour a Jesus
was very easy. The colouring drawn from a suffer
ing Messiah was superimposed on Jesus by the per
petual meditations of the Churches, which, after he
had disappeared, sought the Scriptures diligently,
not to discover whether Jesus was Messiah, which
was already an axiom, but to discover what, and
what sort of a person, Messiah was. According as the
inquirers studied more in one or in another book, the
conception of Messiah came out different; and here
we have an obvious explanation of the varieties of
portrait in different gospels. The first disciples, who
thus by prophetical studies supplemented the dry
*
outlines which alone could be communicated by the
actual hearers of Jesus, would naturally affix to him
many traits not strictly human, nor laudable except
on the theory of his superhuman character. Never
theless, in a Church exalted by moral enthusiasm
and self-sacrifice, in which the highest spirits were
truly devoted to practical holiness, it is to be expected
that whatever is most beautiful and tender, pure and
good, in the traits of character which in Isaiah or
elsewhere were believed to belong to Messiah, would
be eagerly appropriated to Jesus, as they evidently
* To my personal knowledge, this is the systematic practice of Pauline
Christians in the present day. They read of Jesus in the Psalms, in the
Prophets, in the “types” of Leviticus, in the Song of Solomon, in the
Proverbs,—anywhere, in short,—with more zeal and pleasure than in the
three gospels. A free instinct guides them to feed on less stubborn
material.
�Against Hero-Making
were by Paul. Some of these would be likely to
tinge often-repeated narratives; so that, although
none could invent the outline portrait of Jesus, no
difficulty appears in the way of a theory, that the
moral sentiment of the Church has cast a soft halo
over a character perhaps rather stern and ambitious,
than discriminating, wise, or tender.
We cannot recover lost history. Into the narra
tives and discourses of Jesus so much of legendary
error has crept that we may write or wrangle about
him for ever: Paul is a palpable and positive cer
tainty. In what single moral or religious quality
Jesus was superior to Paul, I find myself unable to
say. Is it really a duty incumbent on each of us to
decide such questions ? Why must the task of award
ing the palm of spiritual greatness among men be
foisted into religion ?
It is a fact on the surface of history, that Paul,
more than any one else, overthrew ceremonialism.
Hereby he founded a religion more expansive than
that of Isaiah, and, in his fond belief, expansive as
the human race, as the children of God. He was not
the first Jew to propound the nullity of ceremonies.
If time allowed, that topic might admit instructive
amplification. The controversy against ceremonies
was inevitable, and, with or without him, must have
been fought out. What he effected, let us thankfully
record; but God does not allow us to owe our souls
to any one man, as though he were a fountain of life.
It is an evil thing to call ourselves a man’s followers,
to express devotion to him, and blazon forth his name.
�In Religion^
33
Every teacher is largely the product of his age:
whatever light and truth he imparts, the glory of it
is due to the Father of Light alone, from whom
•cometh down every good and perfect gift. Any glory
for it would be inexpressibly painful to a true-hearted
prophet; I mean, for instance, to one true-hearted as
Paul. He had no wish to be called Master, Master.
He could not bear to hear any one say, “ I am of
Paul.” “ Who then is Paul, and who Apollos,
but ministers by whom ye have believed ? ” What!
when a man believes himself to be the channel by
which it has pleased the Unseen Lord to pour out
some portion of hidden truth for the feeding of
hungry souls, can such a one bear to be praised and
thanked for his ministrations ? Nay, in proportion as
he knows himself to speak God’s truth by the impulse
of God’s spirit, in the same proportion he feels his
own personality to be annihilated, and he breathes
out an intense desire that God in him may be glorified,
but the man be forgotten. I say then, let not us
thwart and counteract such yearnings of the simplehearted instructor. Hear Paul himself further on
this matter. “ Let no man glory in men; for all
things are yours : whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas,
or the world or life or death, or things present or
things to come—all are yours.” He means that the
collective children of God are the end, for whom God
has provided teachers as tools and instruments. But
this is not all. In proportion as the teachers are
elevated, the taught become unable to judge of their
relative rank in honour. Paul therefore forbad tho
�34
Against Hero-Making in Religion.
attempt, and deprecated praise. “.With me,” ho
continues, “ it is a very small thing that I should be
judged of you, or of man’s judgment; yea, I judge
not my own self, but he that judgeth me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before the time, until the
Lord come ; who both will bring to light the hidden
things of darkness, and will make manifest the
counsels of hearts; and then shall every man have
(his own) praise of God.” What else did he mean
to say but: Think not to distribute awards among
those to whom you look up. To graduate the claims
of equals and inferiors is generally more than a
sufficient task. Leave God to pass his awards on
those who are spiritually above you; who possibly,
like Paul, may receive your praise as painful, and be
wholly unconcerned at your blame. The glorifying
of religious teachers has hitherto never borne any
fruit but canonizations and deifications, “ voluntary
humility and worshipping of messengers,” vain
competitions and rival sects; stagnation in the letter,
quenching of the Spirit.
PRINTED BY C. W. REYNELL, LITTLE PULTENEY STREET, HAYMARKET.
�By the same Author.
TRANSLATION OF THE UMBRIAN (IGUVINE) IN
SCRIPTIONS BY INTERLINEAR LATIN, UNDER THE
COMPLETE TEXT. With Ample Notes. 8vo.
[In the Press.
LECTURES ON POLITICAL ECONOMY.
doth, 5s.
Post 8vo,
PHASES OF FAITH; or, Passages from the History of
My Creed. Post 8vo, doth, 3s. 6d.
THE SOUL—HER SORROWS AND HER ASPIRA
TIONS. An Essay Towards the Natural History of the Soul as the
Basis of Theology. Post 8vo, doth, 3s. 6d.
THEISM, DOCTRINAL AND PRACTICAL; or, DIDAC
TIC RELIGIOUS UTTERANCES : Intended to Reinforce the
Truths Common to Monotheists, whether Christian, Jewish, Turk
ish, or Indian. Small 4to, doth, 8s. 6d.
CATHOLIC UNION: ESSAYS TOWARDS A CHURCH
OF THE FUTURE, AS THE ORGANIZATION OF PHI
LANTHROPY. Post 8vo, doth, 3s. 6d.
A HISTORY OF THE HEBREW MONARCHY, FROM
THE ADMINISTRATION OF SAMUEL TO THE BABY
LONISH CAPTIVITY. Second Edition. 8s. 6d.
THE
CRIMES OF THE HOUSE OF HAPSBURG
AGAINST ITS OWN LIEGE SUBJECTS. 8vo, sewed, Is.
LOUIS KOSSUTH’S SPEECHES IN AMERICA. Post
8vo, boards, 5s.
A DISCOURSE AGAINST HERO-MAKING IN RELI
GION. is.
Tbubnbb & Co., 60 Paternoster Row, London.
By the same Author.
HOMERIC TRANSLATION. A Reply to Professor Arnold.
Crown 8vo, doth, 2s. 6d.
Williams & Norgate, Henrietta Street, Covent Garden.
THE ILIAD OF HOMER, FAITHFULLY TRANSLATED
INTO UNRHYMED ENGLISH METRE. Crown 8vo, doth,
6s. 6d.
THE
ODES
OF
HORACE,
TRANSLATED INTO
SPECIAL UNRHYMED METRES; with Introductions and
Notes, Historical and Explanatory. Crown 8vo, cloth, 5s.
LONGFELLOW’S HIAWATHA, IN EASY POETICAL
PROSE LATIN, with Abridgment; as an Aid and Storehouse of
Words to Students who have overcome First Difficulties. 18mo,
doth, 2s.
Walton & Mabeblt, Upper Gower Street, London.
�The following Pamphlets and' Pqpers ma/y be had
on addressing a reguest for- -any of them to
Thomas Scott, JBsg., West Clif, Ramsgate.
PHILOSOPHIC
TRUTH.
RESEARCH INTO GOD’S OWN
COULD THE JEWS, WITH DUE REGARD TO THE
MOSAIC LAW, HAVE ACTED OTHERWISE THAN THEY
DID TO JESUS OF NAZARETH?
ETERNAL PUNISHMENT.
An Examination of
Doctrines held by the Clergy of the Church of England.
Presbyter Anglicanus.
the
By
THE BIBLE CONSIDERED AS A RECORD OF HIS
TORICAL DEVELOPMENT.
AN ADDRESS TO THE FRIENDS OF FREE INQUIRY
AND FREE EXPRESSION.
AN APPEAL TO THE THOUGHTFUL.
ABRAHAM’S SACRIFICE.
A Sermon for Claybrook
Sunday School. By the Right Rev. J. W. Colenso, D.D., Bishop
of Natal.
LETTER AND SPIRIT. By A Clergyman of the Church
of
England.
SCIENCE AND THEOLOGY.
By Richard Davies
Hanson, Esq., Chief Justice of South Australia.
AGAINST HERO-MAKING IN RELIGION. By Professor
Francis William Newman.
REMARKS ON THE ADDRESS OF THE BISHOP OF
LONDON. By An Oxford M.A.
THE COLENSO CONTROVERSY; THE VIEWS OF
THE KAFFIRS INVOLVED IN IT; AND THE MISSION
ARY MEANING AT THE BOTTOM OF IT. By A London
Zulu.
PUBLIC LESSONS OF THE HANGMAN.
Holyoake.
INSPIRATION AND THE
By G. J.
PROPHETIC GIFT.
By
Rev. J. Page Hopps.
[Several other Publications, of which the Editions have been
exhausted, are not named here.]
�
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
Against hero-making in religion
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 34, [2] p. ; 18 cm
Notes: 'Reprinted by permission, for private circulation' [From title page]. Printed by Charles W. Reynell, Little Pulteney Street, Haymarket, London and copies sold by Trubner & Co. A list of works by the same author on unnumbered pages at the end.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Charles W. Reynell
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1865
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G4859
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 (Against hero-making in religion), identified by Humanist Library and Archives, is free of known copyright restrictions.
Language
A language of the resource
English
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Hero-Worship
Jesus Christ
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/612a86d21a17fc3e11eb6f6cd2cb4630.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=MqmbZa-sBKGuQqIkFdiXhyxPJ6Lq-Ni-iLWaquDFXWM-E4zeM2qqQblRxF5eI-RpoYMTvAwZvBJ7so9zWa2j3tkH1xbTgN0WEynmBbjdQBIyxtP5URUHKF0GliUnNlScubCEOKOrcW5Kb8KpbK%7EwzSGgggdP6r82w3oyJJg3DzVS3p7BePpNh5H3l0Jv2o0mrpmDxHQjutwb7QOm%7EABK9s1CSA4j0By75pj6S2RwfsoHgLwuivErxPLE9qCpDrOsR2KJCdiSD53s%7EOgg8wEOMC9L5syIngGirbkbu2k3ycmNv1T-Zttzj2aa36bEOAsS9rawRNDe3KCUDYGIvZeeKQ__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
bea4926af6caea4682ebe176f37ca957
PDF Text
Text
A DISCOURSE
AGAINST HERO-MAKING
>
$n
*
^tligxan,
DELIVERED IN SODTH PLACE CHAPEL, FINSBURY,
April 24th, 1864.
BY
FRANCIS W. NEWMAN.
Printed by request, with, Enlargements.
LONDON:
TEUBNER AND CO., 60, PATERNOSTER ROW.
1864.
�“ Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but ministers by whom
ye believed ?
“ Paul planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
Wherefore let no man glory in men.”
�-e
DISCOURSE
AGAINST
HERO-MAKING IN RELIGION,
OR more than twenty years we have been made familiar
F
with the phrase Hero-Worship.
It has been applied
not only in the regions of politics and literature, but in
religion, as the phrase itself strictly claims.
We have been
told, from very opposite quarters, that the' excellence, as well
as the characteristic, of the Christian religion turns on its
venerating a personal hero in Jesus of Nazareth.
Many who
regard Jesus as a mere man, yet insist upon inscribing them
selves his servants and followers, and on so wedding their
honour for him with their adoration to God most high, as
systematically to incorporate the two.
Nay, some who utterly
disown allegiance to Jesus—who think him to have taught
• many things erroneously, and to have had nothing super
natural in his character, in his powers, in his knowledge, in
his virtue, in his birth, or in his communications with God—
still maintain that he is fitly called the Regenerator of man
kind, and ought to receive—I know not what acknowledg
ment—as our Saviour.
It appears then not superfluous to
bestow a little space on the treatment of this question.
�4
I need hardly observe that personal qualities alone in no
case constitute a hero.
Action and success must be added;
and action cannot succeed until the times are ripe.
knows this better than the true hero.
No one
True genius is modest
in self-appreciation, and is fully aware how many other men
could have achieved the same results if the same rare con
juncture of circumstances had presented itself to them.
Men
of genius are fewer than common men, but they are no
accident.
God has provided for their regular and continuous
recurrence; theii birth is ordinary and certain in every nation
*
which is counted by millions.
The same is true in every
form of mental pre-eminence, whether capacity for leadership,
or genius for science, or religious and moral susceptibility.
Religion, separate from morals, is, of course, only fanaticism.
We venerate religion only when built upon pure morals.
Moral religion is notoriously a historic growth, and has de
pended on traditional culture at least as much as what is
especially called science; and its progress is not more way
ward and arbitrary than that of science, if the whole of
human history be surveyed.
The present is ever growing
out of the past, with a vigour and a certainty which never
allow the fortunes of the race to be seriously dependent on
any individual.
Each of us is, morally as well as physically,
a birth out of antecedents.
From childhood we are tutored
in right and wrong, not only by professed teachers, but by
all elder persons who are around us.
Improper deeds or
words of a child are reproved by a servant, or by an elder
brother, or even by a stranger, as well as by a parent or a
priest.
We imbibe moral sentiment, as it were, at every
pore of our moral nature; nor do we often know from whom
�5
we learned to abhor this course of conduct and to love that.
Hence no wise man will claim originality for his moral
judgments or religious sentiments.
A foolish dogma, a
fanciful tenet, may easily be original; but a pure sound
truth is more likely to have been old.
To prove its novelty
is impossible, and certainly could not recommend it: on the
contrary, the older we can prove it to have been, the greater
its ostensible authority.
For these reasons, in the theory of
morals and religion, a claim of originality can seldom or
never be sustained: in this whole field the question is less
■what a man has taught, than what he has persuaded others.
Hundreds of us may have said, truly and wisely: “ It is a
great pity that Mohammedans, Jews, and Christians of every
sect will not unlearn their dissensions, and blend into one
religious community.”
The sentiment must once have been
even new; yet its utterance coidd never have earned praise
and distinction.
But if any one devoted his life to bring
about such union, and succeeded in it, we should undoubtedly
regard him as a moral hero; though (as just said) no one
could succeed, until the fulness of time arrived and the crisis
was seized judiciously.
Thus, in discussing the claims put forth for special and
indeed exclusive honour to the name of Jesus, we have to
consider, not so much what he said, or is said to have said, as
what he effected; what impression he actually produced by
his life and teaching; what great, noble, abiding results his
energies originated and bequeathed.
The moment we ask,
What are the facts ? we seem to be plunged into waves of
most uncertain controversy; into discussions of literature
unsuitable for short oral treatment.
Yet, before the present
�6
audience, I may with full propriety claim as admitted that
which greatly clears our way.
I presume you to know
familiarly, that the picture of Jesus in the fourth gospel is
essentially irreconcilable with that in the three which
precede, and is neither trustworthy nor credible.
The
three first gospels, taken by themselves, do present a
character, a moral picture, sufficiently self-consistent and
intelligible to reason about.
But our present question (allow
me carefully to insist) is
Do we see in Jesus a remarkable
not,
man, a gifted peasant, a dogmatist by "whom we may profit,
whose noble sentiments we may admire or applaud? but
rather, Do we find one who dwarfs all others before and after
him? one to whose high superiority sages and prophets
must bow; before whom it is reasonable and healthful for
those who have a hundredfold of his knowledge and breadth
of thought to take the place of little children ?
Or, at least,
Has Europe and the world (as a fact) learned from him what
it was not likely to learn without him ?
Is that
trve
which
1s dinned into our ears, that Christendom has imbibed from
him a pure, spiritual, large-hearted, universal religion,
adapted to man as man, cementing mankind as a family, and
ennobling the individual by a new and living Spirit, unknown
to the philosophies, unknown to the priesthoods, untaught by
the prophets, before him ?
Even if we had no insight as to the comparative value of
the several gospels, one broad certainty affords solid ground
to plant the foot upon.
The positive institutions and active
spirit of the first Christian church are notorious and indubit
able;
On learning what the Apostles established in their
Master’s name within a few weeks of his death, We know
�7
with full certainty what they had understood him to leach}
what impression he actually produced, what was the real net
result of his life and preaching: and this, in fact, is our
main question.
Now, it is true beyond dispute—it is con
ceded by every sect of Christians—that in the first Christian
church the Levitical ceremonies were maintained with zealous
rigour, and that its only visible religious peculiarity consisted
in community of goods.
The candidate for baptism professed
no other creed but that Jesus was Messiah; and the obedience
of the disciple to the Master was practically manifested in the
sudden renunciation of private property.
This ordinance
was not, in theory, compulsory; but, while the fervour of
faith was new, it was enforced by the public opinion of the
church so sharply, as to tempt the richer disciples to
hypocrisy.
The story of Ananias and Sappliira is full of
instruction-.
They did not wish to alienate all their goods,
though they were "willing to be very liberal.
In deference
to the prevailing sentiment, they sold property and gave
largely to the church; yet were guilty of keeping back a part
for themselves secretly.
For this fraud (according to the
legend) they were both struck dead at the voice of Peter!
Such a legend could not have arisen, except in a church
which regarded absolute Communism as the characteristic
Christian virtues
Higher proof is not needed that Jesus
established this duty as the touchstone of discipleship: butj
in fact; the account in the three gospels tallies herewith
perfectly.
Jesus there mourns over a rich young man, as
refusing the law of PeHi’ection, because he hesitates to sell
all his goods; give them to the poor, and become a mendicant
friar,
When his disciples, commenting on the young man’s
�8
failure to fulfil tlio test, say: “ Lo! we have left all and
followed thee: what shall we have therefore?”
Jesus in
reply’ promises, that, in reward for having sacrificed to him
the gains of their industry and abandoning their relatives,
they shall sit upon thrones, and judge the twelve tribes of
Israel.
(In passing I remark, that the idea of such a reward
for such a deed is shocking to a Pauline Christian.)
The Jerusalem church was, alone of all churches, founded
by the' chosen representatives of Jesus on the doctrine of
Jesus himself, while the remembrance of that doctrine was
fresh.
It was a special community, not unlike a “ religious
order ” of modern Europe; and could not be discriminated,
by Jews any more than by Homans, from a Jewish sect.
In
the next century, those who seem to have been its direct
successors were called Ebionite heretics by the Gentile
Christians.
When Paul, who ostentatiously refused to learn
anything from the actual hearers of Jesus, had put forth
what he calls “ his own ” gospel—namely,“ the mystery that
Gentiles "were to be fellow-heirs ” without Levitical purity—
he brought on himself animosity and violent opposition from
the Christians of Jerusalem, who were the historical fruit of
Jesus’ own planting.
When Paul was in Jerusalem, one of
the leaders called his attention to the fact that, while many
thousands of Jews were believers, they were “ all zealous of
the law; ” he therefore advised him to pacify their mis
givings and suspicions of him, by performing publicly certain
Judaical ceremonies.
Paul obeyed him: nevertheless, no
such conformities could atone for his offence in teaching that
Gentiles, while free from the law, were equal to the Jews
before God; and Paul to his last day experienced enmity
�9
from the zealous members of that church.
His relations to
the other Apostles we know by his own account to have been
certainly cold.
He seems to be personally pointed at in the
Epistle of James, as “a vain man,” who preaches faith
without works; while he himself (as he tells us) publicly
attacked Petei’ at Antioch as a dissembler and weak truckler
to Jerusalem bigotry.
When, from first to last, the doctrine
of the church at Jerusalem was sternly Levitical, it is quite
incredible that Jesus ever taught his disciples the religious
nullity of Levitical ceremonies and the equality of Gentiles
with Jews before God.
But why need I argue about this,
when it is distinctly clear on the face of the narrative ?
In
the book of Acts the idea that “ God is no respecter of
persons ”—or of nations—breaks upon the mind of Peter as
a new revelation, and is said to have been imparted by a
special vision.
It is not pretended that Jesus had taught it;
nor does Paid, in any of his controversies against Judaism,
dare to appeal to the authority and doctrine of the earthly
Jesus as on his side.
In fact, in the Sermon on the Mount,
as also in a passage of Luke (xvi. 17), Jesus declares that he
is not come to destroy the law; and that “Bather shall
heaven and earth pass away, than shall one tittle of the law
fail.”
I am, of course, aware that Christian theologians
would have us believe that Luke is here defective, and that
the words in Matthew, “ Until all be fulfilled,” mean “ Until
my death shall fulfil all the types.”
But this would make
Jesus purposely to deceive his disciples by a riddle.
This is
indeed worse than trifling, and a gratuitous imputation on
the teacher’s truthfulness.
was understood.
He must have known how he
They supposed him to mean that Levitisnx
�10
was eternal; and lie did not correct the impression.
It was
then the very impression which he designed to make, simply
and truthfully; and the disciples, one and all, rightly under
stood him, and knew it well.
The verse which follows in Matthew clenches the argu
ment ; although (I see I must in candour add) I do not
believe that Jesus spoke it in exactly this form.
Never
theless, it emphatically shows how the writer interpreted the
verse preceding.
For he makes Jesus to add: “ Wherefore,
whosoever shall break one of these least commandments, and
shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom
of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same
shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
I find
myself unable to doubt that these words were written to
mean: “ Wherefore, one like Paul, who breaks the Levitical
ceremonies, and teaches the Gentiles to break them, is least
in my kingdom; but James, and the Apostles in Jerusalem,
who do and teach them, are great in my kingdom.”
The
intensity of feeling on this subject was such, that the Jewish
Christians easily believed Jesus to have prophetically warned
them against Paul’s error.
Be this as it may, the formula,
° break one of these least commandments, and teach men to
break it,” is in contrast to “ fulfilling the law,” and distinctly
shows that “ fulfilling the law ” refers to doing and enforcing
even the least commandments;
The Jerusalem church was the product (and, as far as wd
know, the only direct product) of the teachings of Jesus. Of
its sentiment we have an interesting Exhibition in the epistle
of James; in whom We see a high and severe moralist, pure
and exacting, full of righteous indignation against the
�11
oppression of the poor by the rich, and against all haughtiness
of wealth. He does not treat all private property as unchris
tian ; but only large property.
Evidently no rich man could
have seemed venerable to the chief saints in that church.
He assumes the guilt of all rich men, and announces misery
about to come on them, as does Jesus in the parable of Lazarus:
nevertheless, in him all the harshest parts of Jesus’ precepts
have been softened by the trial of practical life.
In fact, this
epistle is much in the tone of the very noblest of the Hebrew
prophets.
As with them, so in him, the moral element is
wholly predominant, and nothing ceremonial obtrudes itself.
Nay, what is really remarkable, he calls his doctrine the
K perfect law of libertyso little did those ceremonies oppress
him, to which from childhood he had been accustomed.
Let
due honour be given to this specimen of the first and only
genuine Christianity; yet it is difficult to find anything that
morally distinguishes it from the teachings of an Isaiah or a
Joel.
There is certainly a diversity: for the political ele
ments of thought have disappeared, which under the Hebrew
monarchy were prominent.
The great day of the Lord was
no longer expected to glorify the royalty of Jerusalem and
its national laws : and in this diversity lay the germ of great
changes.
It would be absurd to censure an epistle because it is not a
ritual, or to demand in it the fervours of spirituality found in
this or that psalm. Nevertheless, in the present Connection, I
must claim attention to the fact that neither the three Gospels,
nor the epistle pf James have ever been in high favour with
that Caivinistic or Augustinian school which most nearly
Represents Paul to the moderns;
To bring out the argument
�12
in hand more clearly, allow me to make a short digression.
Morality requires both action and sentiment.
No reasonable
teacher can undervalue either : yet some moral teachers press
more on action, and are said to preach duty and work; and
even make a duty of sentiment, laying down as a command
that we shall love God, love our neighbours, love not ease,
love not self.
Other teachers endeavour to excite, foster, and
develop just sentiment, and trust that it will generate just
action: possibly they even run into the error of shunning
definite instruction as to what action is good.
Finite and
one-sided as we are, two schools naturally grow up among
teachers, who may be classed as the preachers of duty and
the preachers of sentiment: but perhaps, if the question be
distinctly proposed to the ablest men of either school, “ Do
we learn action from sentiment, or sentiment from action ?”
they would alike reply (as in substance does Aristotle) that
both processes necessarily co-exist.
From childhood upward,
right action promotes right feeling, and right feeling generates
or heightens right action.
of the two schools.
There is no real or just collision
Nevertheless, as a fact of human history
easily explained, the preaching of duty and of outward action
gains everywhere an early and undue ascendency, perhaps
especially where morals and religion are taught by law, which
deals in command and threat.
The rude man and the child
are subjected to rule more or less arbitrary; and it is only
when intellect rises in a nation or in an individual that the
spiritual side of morals receives its proportionate attention.
In Greek history, we know the fact in the philosophy of
Socrates and Plato.
Among the Hebrews, a secular increase
of spirituality in the highest teachers will probably be con
�13
ceded by critics of every school to have gone on from the
time of the judge Samuel to the writer from whom came the
last twenty-seven chapters of Isaiah.
The characteristic
difference of the Greek and the Hebrew is this: that, however
spiritual the Greek morality might be, it seldom blended with
religion; and (with exceptions perhaps only to be found under
Hebrew influences, as at Alexandria) the moral affections
found no place in religion at all.
Now it has been recently
asserted by a Theist, that it is to Jesus that we owe that
regeneration of religion, which makes it begin and grow from
within. He is not (it is said) “ a mere teachei’ of pure ethics;”
but “his work has been in the heart.
He has transformed
the Law into the Gospel. He has changed the bondage of the
alien for the liberty of the sons of God.
He has glorified
virtue into holiness, religion into piety, and duty into love.”
Hence it is inferred that “his coming was to the life of
humanity what regeneration is to the life of the individual.”*
Deep as is my sympathy with the writer from whom I
quote, I am constrained to say that every part of the state
ment appears to me historically incorrect. It does, in the first
place, violent injustice to the Hebrews who preceded Jesus.
Did he first “ glorify virtue into holiness” ?
Nay, from the
very beginning of Hebraism this was done—at least as early
as Samuel.
Did he first “ glorify religion into piety” ?
Is
there then no piety in the 42nd Psalm ? in the 63rd ? in the
* I quote from the striking treatise of my friend Miss Cobbe,
called “ Broken Lights.” The whole protest against M. Renan, of
which the words above are the summary, should be read to under
stand their relation. I am authorized to say that she has not even
the remotest wish to make honour to Jesus a part of religion: she
intended to write as a historian only:
�14
27th ? in the 23rd ? Nay, I might ask; from what utterances
of Jesus can piety be learned by the man who cannot learn
it from the Psalms ?
Holiness and piety appear to me to
have been taught and exemplified quite as effectively before
Jesus as since.
Surely in the religion of the psalmists piety
dominated, as much as in Fenelon or in the poet Cowper. But
finally I have to ask, “ Did Jesus glorify duty into love?”
And, in order to reply, I turn to the three gospels, as con
taining our best account of what he taught.
A phenomenon there very remarkable is the severity with
which Jesus enforces as duty the most painful renunciations ;
and the contempt with which he rejects anything short of
immediate obedience to his arbitrary demands.
I know not
whether the narrators have overcoloured him ; but they give
us, on the one side, examples of prompt obedience to the com
mand, “ Follow me:” first, in Andrew and Peter; next, in
James and John ; who <l immediately left the ship and their
father, and followed him.”
highly meritorious.
This is afterwards praised as
On the other side, when Jesus says to a
man, "Follow me,” and receives the reply, “Lord, suffer me
first to go and bury my father,” Jesus retorts: “Let the dead
bury their dead, but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.
Another also said, Lord, I will follow thee, but let me first go
and bid them fareioell which are at home in my house.
And
Jesus said unto him, No man, having put his hand to the
plough and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God.”
The peremptory command to abandon their parents, not bury
a dead father, and not even say a word of farewell to the
living, is perhaps a credulous exaggeration of the writer; yet
it is in close harmony with the whole account, and with the
�15
declaration, “ He that hateth not liis father and mother, and
wife and children, cannot be my disciple
for evidently the
following of Jesus, as interpreted and enforced by himself,
involved an abandonment (perhaps to starvation) of these
near relatives.
It is not my purpose to dwell now on the
right or wrong of such precepts, but on the imperious tone in
which they are imposed fromzoithout, not the slightest attempt
being made to recommend them to the heart or understanding.
Again, in perfect harmony with the same is the reply, already
adduced, of Jesus to the rich young1 man, who comes to ask,
“What shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?”
The
opportunity was excellent to set forth that no outward actions
could bring eternal life, but that such life was an interior and
divine state, to be sought by love and faithfulness.
Instead
of spiritual instruction, Jesus gives a crushing arbitrary com
mand : “ If thou wilt be perfect, go, sell that thou hast, and
give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven; and
come and follow me.” Does such a teacher build from within
by implanting Love ? Does he act upon Love at all, or rather
on selfish Ambition?
He deals in hard duty and fierce
threat; commands too high, and motives too low; thoughts
of reward; promises of power; salvation by works; invest
ment of money for returns beyond the grave; prudential
adoption of virtue, which may soften judgment, win pro
motion, deliver from prospective prison and hell fire: topics
which at best are elements of Law, as opposed to Gospel.
In
the opinion of an increasing fraction of the most enlightened
Christians, the most noxious element in the popular creed is
the eternal Hell: the stronghold of this doctrine is in the
discourses of Jesus.
But what of Faith?
If Faith be a
�16
purely spiritual movement, which cleaves to Goodness and
Truth for its own sake, and without regard to selfish interests,
it is hard to say in what part of the three gospels it is found.
In the mind of Jesus all actions seem to stand in the closest
relation to the thoughts of punishment or reward on a great
future day.
To lose one’s soul means, to be sentenced when
that day shall come : cutting off a sin means, escaping muti
lated from a future hell.
In a religion practically moulded
on these discourses, calculation of what we shall hereafter
get by present obedience inheres as a primary essence.
The
only faith which Jesus extols, is, faith to work miracles, and
faith that he is Messiah and can work them.
frowned down and sighed over as unbelief.
Inquiry is
Power to forgive
sin is claimed by him; and, when this is reproved as impious
in a human teacher, the claim is marvellously justified by
identifying forgiveness with cure of bodily disease.
Add to
this the grant of miraculous powers to the Seventy, and a
delegation of power to forgive is made out at which Pro
testants may well shudder.
In another place (Luke vii. 4, 5)
Jesus declares forgiveness of sin to be earned by personal
affection to himself; but I am bound to add that, on special
*
grounds, I do not believe the account.
* The narrative in Luke vii. 37—50 seems to be an inaccurate
duplicate of that in Matt. xxvi. 6, Mark xiv. 3, John xii. 3; which
nearly agree as to time and place—viz., it was in Bethany, a little
before the last Passover. Matthew and Mark say, it was in the house
of Simon the leper : Luke says, of Simon the Pharisee. John calls
the woman Mary of Bethany, sister of Lazarus and of Martha:
Luke says, a woman notorious for sin. I will here remark, that
discussion on the behaviour of Jesus to women of ill fame, which is
called “ delicate,” “ beautiful,” “ characteristic,” &c., appeal’s to me
wholly without basis of fact. Those who allow no historical cha
�17
Luke has in some parts added softer touches to Jesus, and
gives us two fine parables which it is astonishing that Matthew
and Mark omit, while they retail so many that are monoto
nous : yet even in Luke I seek in vain for anything calculated
to implant in the heart a sense of freedom ; to excite willing
service; or to cherish spiritual desire, gratitude and tranquil
In fact, Luke
love, careless of other reward than love itself.
is sometimes harsher than Matthew. Thus, in vi. 20, “ Blessed
be ye poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.
Blessed are ye
that hunger now, for ye shall be filled.
But woe unto
.
.
you that are rich; for ye have received your consolation.
unto you that are full; for ye shall hunger.
Woe
Woe unto you
that laugh now; for ye shall mourn and weep.”
So indiscri
minate and thoughtless-are devotees, that such doctrine meets
with the same theoretic glorification as the essentially different
version of Matthew: “ Blessed are the poor in spirit.
.
.
Blessed are ye who hunger and thirst after righteousness.”
If Matthew be correct and Luke’ wrong, Luke has foisted
upon Jesus curses against rich and mirthful men, in contrast
racter to the discourses in John will not quote John iv. 16—19, nor
John viii. 1—11, against this remark: and nothing remains but Luke
vii. 37—50. The fair fame of Mary Magdalene has been blasted by
believing this story in Luke, and then identifying her with the
woman.
I will add that many who must know seem to forget, that no
Greek philosopher—neither an Anaxagoras nor a Zeno, to say
nothing of Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, Seneca—would ever
have felt crude or unjust severity towards a woman’s faults. If
English sentiment sometimes appear harsh against women who have
made a trade of themselves, is it not because sins which are gainful
to the sinner are more inveterate and more contagious than sins
which imf'Oterish him ?
B
�18
to the blessings on poverty and weeping: but if the curses
came from the lips of Jesus, Luke gives the opposite clauses
justly; in which case Matthew has improved monkish into
spiritual sentiment.
It would be a hard task to prove Luke’s
version out of harmony with the constant doctrines of Jesus.
To borrow Calvinistic phraseology, and (if my memory serves
me) the very words of a Pauline spiritualist: “ The three
gospels may be read in the churches till doomsday, without
converting a single soul.”
The spiritual side of Christianity,
inherited from the Hebrew psalmists, not from Jesus, was
diffused beyond Judaea, first by the Jewish synagogues, next
by the school of Paul, to whom the school of Jesus was in
fixed opposition, preaching works and the law, while Paul
preached the Spirit and faith. “ Though I give all my goods
to feed the poor,” says Paul, “ and give my body to be burned,
and have not charity, I am nothing.”
How vast the contrast
here to the doctrine of Jesus: “ Every one that hath forsaken
houses, oi’ brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife,
or children, or lands for my name’s sake, shall receive a hun
dredfold, and shall inherit eternal life.”
To make ascetic
sacrifices for the honour of Jesus was indeed a surpassing
merit in his eyes, unless the most important discourses, even
in these three gospels, extravagantly belie him.
I am unable
to discover on what just ground the opinion stands that the
character of Jesus is less harsh, and his precepts less sourly
austere than those of John the Baptist.
Little as we are told
of the latter (all of which is honourable), the two must have
had close similarities.
Let it be remembered that Apollos is
spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles as “ instructed in the
�19
way of the Lord, and fervent in spirit, and teaching diligently
the things of the Lord,” while he “ knew only the baptism of
John.”
So also Paul falls in with “certain disciples” at
Ephesus, who pass as Christians ; yet he presently discovers
that they also know only John’s baptism.
It seems there
fore evident, that the two schools had nothing essential to
divide them, and were intimately alike.
When, on the other
hand, the sharp opposition of the Pauline doctrine to that of
James and the church of Jesus at Jerusalem is duly estimated,
some may think that certain words put into the mouth of
John the Baptist will become less untrue if changed as
follows: “ I indeed and Jesus baptize you with water unto
repentance and poverty ; but Paul shall baptize you with the
Holy Spirit and with fire.”
Be that as it may—give as little
weight as you please to Paul’s strong points—press as heavily
as you will on his weak side, out of which came the worst
part of Calvinism—the fact remains, that Jesus did not teach
Christianity to the Gentiles, or declare them admissible to
his church without observing Mosaism; and that to the Jews
themselves he preached merely severe precepts, ethical or
monkish, with a minimum of what can be called Gospel;—
precepts, on which a religious order might be founded, but
totally unsuitable for a world-wide religion.
When people calmly tell me that Jesus first established
the brotherhood of man, the equality of races, the nullity of
ceremonies; that he overthrew the narrowness of Judaism;
that he found a national, but left a universal religion; found
a narrow-minded ceremonial, and originated a spiritual prin
ciple, I can do nothing but reply that every one of these
b
2
�2Q
statements is groundless and contrary to fact,
What his
disciples never understood him to teach, he certainly did not
teach effectually.
It is childish to reply that the fault lay in
the stupidity of the twelve Apostles.
speak as plainly as Paul did ?
What! could not Jesus
Surely, the more stupid the
hearer, the more plainly the teacher is bound to speak.
If
Jesus had so spoken, never could want of spirituality in the
hearer have made the words unintelligible.
Did only the
spiritual understand Paul when he proclaimed the overthrow
of ceremonies ?
Could the most stupid of mortals have failed
to understand Jesus also, if he had avowed that the Levitical
ordinances were a nullity and Gentiles the religious equals of
Jews ?
I may seem to insult men’s intellect by pressing these
questions; but do not they rather insult our intellect ?
For
they would have us believe Jesus to have originated doctrines
which are the very opposite of all that his actual hearers and
authorized expounders established as his, before there was
time for his teaching to fade from their memory, and to be
modified by novelties supervening.
I have called the primitive church of Jerusalem the only
direct product of Jesus.
Do I deny that Jesus bore any part
at all in setting up the creed known in Europe as Christian -
ism ?
I wish I could wholly deny it.
Gladly would I relieve
his memory of all responsibility for dogmas, whence proceed
far more darkness and weakness of mind, confusion, bitterness,
and untractable •enmities, than his moral teaching can ever
dispel; dogmas which as effectually break up good men into
hostile sects, with fixed walls of partition between them, as
ever did the ceremonialism which he is falsely imagined to
�21
have destroyed.
But, hard as it is to know how much of the
gospels is historical, I suppose that no one for three centuries
at least has doubted that Jesus avowed himself to be Messiah,
at first privately, at last ostentatiously; and was put to death
for the avowal.
ground.
If so much be historical, we are on firm
There is then no room for transcendental philoso
phies and imaginative theories, as to what authority and
honour Jesus was claiming.
The Jews of that day familiarly
understood that Messiah was to be a Prince from Heaven, who
should rule and judge on earth.
As to the great outlines of
his character and power, manifestly there was no dispute.
If
the popular notions on this subject were wrong, the first busi
ness with Jesus must have been to set them right.
But he
never discourses against them, nor shows alarm lest he be
thought to claim supernatural dignity and lordship: nor
could his riding triumphantly on the ass, amid shouts of
“ Hosanna to the Son of David! ” have been intended to dis
courage the belief that he was to exercise temporal as well as
spiritual royalty.
The learned and the vulgar were in full
agreement that Messiah was to be a supreme Prince and
Teacher to Israel, Judge and Lord of all nations: but the
rulers regarded it as impious, criminal, and treasonable to
aspire to this dignity w’hile unable to exhibit some miraculous
credentials. The fixed belief concerning Messiah was gathered,
not only from our canonical prophets, but also from the book
called “ The Wisdom of Solomon ” (whichwvas in the Greek
Bible of Paul and other Hellenist Jews), and still more vividly
from the book of Enoch, which Jude and Peter quote rever
entially, and Jude ascribes to the prophet Enoch, the seventh
�22
from Adam.
With the discovery of that book early in this
century a new era for the criticism of Christianity ought to
have begun; for it is evidently the most direct fountain of
the Messianic creed.
The book of Mormon does not stand
alone as a manifest fiction which had power to generate a
new religion; the book of Enoch is a like marvellous exhibi
tion of human credulity.
A recent German critic has given
the following summary of its principal contents
It not
only comprizes the scattered allusions of the Old Testament
in one grand picture of unspeakable bliss, unalloyed virtue,
and unlimited knowledge: it represents the Messiah as both
King and Judge of the world, who has the decision over
everything on earth and in heaven.
He is the Son of Man
who possesses righteousness; since the God of all spirits
has elected him, and since he has conquered all by righteous
ness in eternity.
He is also the Son of God, the Elected one,
the Prince of Righteousness.
which knows all secret things.
is poured out upon him.
He is gifted with that wisdom
The Spirit in all its fulness
His glory lasts to all eternity.
He
shares the throne of God’s majesty: kings and princes will
worship him, and will invoke his mercy.”*
So much from
the book of Enoch ; which undoubtedly was widely believed
among the contemporaries of Jesus.
How much of the self
glorifying language put into the mouth of Jesus was actually
uttered by him it is impossible to know. There is always
room for the opinion that only later credulity ascribed this
* I quote from a summary of the book of Enoch by the German
theologian Kalisch, given in Bishop Colenso’s Appendix to his 4th
volume on the Pentateuch.
�23
and that to him—that (for instance) he did not really speak
the parable about the sheep and goats, representing himself
as the Supreme Judge who awards heaven or hell to every
human soul.
But it remains, that this parable distinctly
shows the nature of the dignity which Jesus was supposed to '
claim in calling himself Son of Man ; and, even if we arbi- trarily pare away from his discourses this and other details
in defereflce to Unitarian surmise, we still cannot get rid of
what pervades the whole narrative, that Jesus from the
beginning adopted a tone of superhuman authority and
obtrusion of his own personal greatness, with the title “ Son
of Man,” allusive both to Daniel and to the book of Enoch.
According to Daniel, one like unto a Son of Man will come in
the clouds of heaven to receive eternal dominion over all
nations.
It is impossible to doubt, that, in the mind of those
to whom Jesus spoke, the character of Messiah implied an
overshadowing supremacy, a high leadership over Israel, and
hereby over the Gentiles, who were to come and sit at Israel’s
feet: a religious and, as it were, princely pre-eminence, which
only one mortal could receive, who by it was raised im
measurably above all others.
If he did not intend to claim
this, it was obviously his first duty to disclaim it, and to warn
all against false, dangerous, or foolish conceptions of Messiah ;
to protest that Messiah was only a teacher, not a prince, not
a divine lawgiver, not a supreme judge sitting on the throne
of God and disposing of men’s eternal destinies.
Nay, why
claim the title Messiah at all, if it could only suggest false
hood ?
Since he sedulously fostered the belief that he was
Messiah j without attempting to define the term) or guide the
�2<
public mind, he could only be understood, and must have
wished to be understood, to present himself as Messiah in the
popular, notorious sense. If he was really this, honour him as
such.
If his claim was delusive, he cannot be held guiltless.
Every high post has its own besetting sin, which must be
conquered by him who is to earn any admiration.
A finance
minister, who pilfers the treasury, can never be honoured as
a hero, whatever the merits of his public measures. 'A states
man or prince, entrusted with the supreme executive power,
ruins his claims to veneration if he use that power violently
to overthrow the laws.
Such as is the crime of a statesman
who usurps a despotism, sttch is the guilt of a religious
teacher who usurps lordship over the taught and aggrandizes
himself.
It is a bottomless gulf of demerit, swallowing up all
possible merit, and making silence concerning him our kindest
course, if only his panegyrists allow us to be silent.
A
teacher who exalts himself into our Lord and Saviour and
Judge, leaves to his hearers no reasonable choice between
two extremes of conduct.
him.
Whoso is not with him is against
For we must either submit frankly to his claims, and
acknowledge ourselves little children—abhor the idea of
criticizing him or his precepts, and in short become morally
annihilated in his presence—or, on the opposite, we cannot
help seeing him to have fallen into something worse than
ignominy.
I digress to remark, that a teacher supposed by us to be
the infallible arbiter of our eternity would detain our minds
for ever in a puerile state if lie taught dogmatically, not to
say imperiously.
If he aimed to elicit our own powers of
�25
judgment, and not to crush, us into submissive imbecility, the
method which Socrates carried to an extreme appears alone
suited to the object; namely, to refrain from expressing his
own decisions, but lay before the hearers the material of
thought half-prepared, and claim of them to combine it into
some conclusion themselves.
In fact, this is fundamentally
the mode in which the Supremely Wise, who inhabits this
infinite world, trains our minds and souls.
His greatness does
not oppress our faculties, because it is ever silent from with
out.
Displaying before us abundantly the materials of judg
ment, he elicits our powers ; never commanding us to become
little children, but always inviting our minds to grow up into,
manhood.
But, if there were also an opposite side of teaching-
healthful to us—if it were well to start from dogmas guaran
teed to us from heaven, which it is impiety to canvas—then
the matter of first necessity would be, that the uttered decrees
to which we are to submit should be free from all enigma, all
extravagance of hyperbole, all parable, dark allusion, and hard
metaphor, all apparent self-contrariety ; and, moreover, that,
we should have no uncertainty what were the teacher’s precise
words, no mere mutilated reports and inconsistent duplicates,
but a reliable genuine copy of every utterance on which there
is to be no criticism.
To sum up, I will say: Nothing can be
less suited to minister the Spirit and train the powers of the
human soul, than to be subject to a superhuman dictation of
truth; and nothing could be more unlike a divine law of the
letter, than the incoherent, hyperbolic, enigmatic, inconsistent
fragments of discourses given to us unauthoritatively as teach
ings of Jesus.
�26
But I return to my main subject.
I have shown what
conclusions seem inevitable, so soon as we cease to believe
that Jesus is the celestial Prince Messiah of the book of
Enoch, popularly expected in his day.
To lay stress on
his possession of this or that gentle and beautiful virtue
is quite away from the purpose.
Let it be allowed that
Luke has rightly added this and that soft touch to the
Let it be granted that the
picture in Matthew and Mark.
nobler as well as the baser side of the Jerusalem church
came direct from Jesus himself.
Whether any of the actual
virtues of European Christians have been kindled from fires
which really burnt in Jesus, it appears to me impossible to
know.
The heart of Paul gushed with the tenderest and
warmest love, and he believed Christ to be its source.
But
the Christ whom he loved to glorify was not the Christ of our
books, which did not yet exist; nor a Christ reported to him
by the Apostles, to whom he studiously refused to listen ; but
the Christ whom he made out in the Messianic Psalms, in
parts of Isaiah, in the apocryphal book called Wisdom, and
perhaps also in the book of Enoch.
With such sources of
meditation and information open, the personal and bodily
existence of Jesus was thought superfluous by a numbei' of
Christians considerable enough to earn denunciations in the
epistles of John.
A great and good man, Theodore Parker,
tells me that'it would take a Jesus to invent a Jesus. I reply,
that, though to invent a Jesus was undoubtedly difficult, to
colour a Jesus was very easy.
The colouring drawn from a
Buffering Messiah was superimposed on Jesus by the perpetual
meditations of the churches, which, after he had disappeared,
�27
sought the Scriptures diligently,
not
to discover whether
Jesus was Messiah, which was already an axiom, but to dis
cover what, and what sort of a person, Messiah was.
Ac
cording as the inquirers studied more in one or in another
book, the conception of Messiah came out different; and here
we have an obvious explanation of the varieties of portrait in
different gospels. The first disciples, who thus by prophetical
*
studies supplemented the dry outlines which alone could be
communicated by the actual hearers of Jesus, would naturally
affix to him many traits not strictly human, nor laudable
except on the theory of his superhuman character.
Never
theless, in a church exalted by moral enthusiasm and self
sacrifice, in which the highest spirits were truly devoted to
practical holiness, it is to be expected that whatever is most
beautiful and tender, pure and good, in the traits of character
which in Isaiah or elsewhere were believed to belong to
Messiah, would be eagerly appropriated to Jesus, as they
evidently were by Paul.
Some of these would be likely to
tinge often-repeated narratives; so that, although none could
invent the outline portrait of Jesus, no difficulty appears in
the way of a theory, that the moral sentiment of the church
has cast a soft halo over a character perhaps rather stem and
ambitious, than discriminating, wise, or tender.
* To my personal knowledge, this is the systematic practice of
Pauline Christians in the present day. They read of Jesus in the
Psalms, ih the Prophets, in the “ types” of Leviticus, in the Song of
Solomon, in the ProVerbs,—anywhere, in short,—with iiiore zeal and
pleasure than in the three gospels. A free instinct guides them to
feed on less stubborn material.
�28
We cannot recover lost history. Into the narratives and dis
courses of Jesus so much of legendary error has crept that we
may write or wrangle about him for ever : Paul is a palpable
and positive certainty.
In what single moral or religious
quality Jesus was superior to Paul, I find myself unable to say.
Is it really a duty incumbent on each of us to decide such
questions ? . Why must the task of awarding the palm of
spiritual greatness among men be foisted into religion ?
It is a fact on the surface of history, that Paul, more than
any one else, overthrew ceremonialism.
Hereby he founded
a religion more expansive than that of Isaiah, and, in his
fond belief, expansive as the human race, as the children of
God.
He was not the first Jew ta propound the nullity of
ceremonies.
If time allowed, that topic might admit in
structive amplification.
The controversy against ceremonies
was inevitable, and, with or without him, must have been
fought out.
What he effected, let us thankfully record; but
.God does not allow us to owe our souls to any one man, as
though he were a fountain of life.
It is an evil thing to call
ourselves a man’s followers, to express devotion to him, and
blazon forth his name.
Every teacher is largely the product
of his age: whatever light and truth he imparts, the glory
of it is due to the Father of Light alone, from whom cometh
down every good and perfect gift.
Any glory for it would
be inexpressibly painful to a true-hearted prophet; I mean,
for instance, to one true-hearted as Paul.
He had no wish
to be called Master, Master.
He could not bear to hear any
one say, “ I am of Paul.”
“ Who then is Paul, and who
Apollos, but ministers by whom ye have believed ?”
What!
�29
when a man believes himself to be the channel by which it has
pleased the Unseen Lord to pour out some portion of hidden
truth for the feeding of hungry souls, can such a one bear to
be praised and thanked for his ministrations ?
Nay, in pro
portion as he knows himself to speak God’s truth by the
impulse of God’s spirit, in the same proportion he feels his
own personality to be annihilated, and he breathes out an
intense desire that God in him may be glorified, but the man
be forgotten.
I say then, let not us thwart and counteract
such yearnings of the simple-hearted instructor.
himself further on this matter.
Hear Paul
“ Let no man glory in men;
for all things are yours : whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas,
or the world or life or death, or things present or things to
come—all are yours.”
He means that the collective children
of God are the end, for whom God has provided teachers as
tools and instruments.
But this is not all.
In proportion as
the teachers are elevated, the taught become unable to judge
of their relative rank in honour. Pauf therefore forbad the.
attempt, and deprecated praise.
“ With me,” he continues,
“ it is a very small thing that I should be judged of you, or
of man’s judgment; yea, I judge not my own self, but he
that judgeth me is the Lord.
Therefore judge nothing before
the time, until the Lord come ; who both will bring to light
the hidden things of darkness, and will make manifest the
counsels of hearts; and then shall every man have (his own)
praise of God.”
What else did he mean to say but: Think
not to distribute awards among those to whom you look up.
To graduate the claims of equals and inferiors is generally
more than a sufficient task.
Leave God to pass his awards
�80
on. those who are spiritually above you; who possibly, like
Paul, may receive your praise as painful, and be wholly
unconcerned at your blame.
The glorifying of religious
teachers has hitherto never borne any fruit but canonizations
and deifications, “voluntary humility and worshipping of
messengers,” vain competitions and rival sects ; stagnation in
the letter, quenching of the Spirit.
�
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
A discourse against hero-making in religion, delivered in South Place Chapel, Finsbury, April 24th, 1864
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Newman, Francis William [1805-1897.]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 30 p. ; 21 cm.
Notes: Printed by request, with Enlargements. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Inscription on title page: To M.D. Conway with the writer's kind regards.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Trubner and Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1864
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5196
Subject
The topic of the resource
Religion
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
Hero-Worship
Jesus Christ
Religion
-
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/8152de9939ea45dc2c9b93dad7a55112.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=M1wAeTiq7YEORJIcQtjaCxTAse3kRb40TJl9gs4vP%7EmCJ7WcCkSfFNK7L1JumRzfa8ooV2990t6B8ytICzwvVL-o6grRfnuHT6LyjRP33p9kYn8WaeP6ZYu%7E8ZhlP2MZCwO9F62LrLcZiblWd0LkOJpv6%7E02tjEGwZ3MDZQHsHQ4U6iF3Dzp5eJeFS3RBsLEOn9ez4sdAJeLTzvTJoS6wG3XJy24irzo07jzXDJZsf9zkfNsbrJ%7E2RhS7X05yiPvyKTYkUejcd9QMXIkZFiAwnE9ZSxQxlVkBe6i8KXyZp3v5ku%7E6NHb-Y0qj0g8BX8YoHGJIaXPyYaznOFcNmYAbA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
024752376b532e30a7e070a29db47708
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCrr?nr,v
ZZ/A OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
THE
SUBJECT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
JULIAN,
Author of “ The Popular Faith Exposed," “Bible Words: Human,
not Divine," “ The Pillars of the Church," Etc.
ISSUED FOR THE
London:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St.
Price One Penny.
�OUR PROPAGANDIST PRESS COMMITTEE.
This Committee is formed for the purpose of assisting in the pro
duction and circulation of liberal publications.
The members of the Committee are Mr. G. J. Holyoake, Dr.
Bithell, Mr. F. J. Gould, Mr. Frederick Millar, and Mr. Charles
A. Watts.
It is thought that the most efficient means of spreading the prin
ciples of Rationalism is that of books and pamphlets. Many will
read a pamphlet who would never dream of visiting a lecture hall.
At the quiet fireside arguments strike home which might be dissi
pated by the excitement of a public debate. The lecturer wins his
thousands, the penman his tens of thousands.
The aim of the various writers is to obtain converts by per
suasiveness rather than undue hostility towards the popular creeds.
The author of each pamphlet is alone responsible for the state
ments contained therein.
All who are in sympathy with the movement are earnestly re
quested to contribute towards the expenses as liberally as their
means will allow. The names of donors will not be published
without their consent.
Contributions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles A. Watts,
17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Cheques should
be crossed “ Central Bank uf London, Blackfriars Branch.”
PUBLICATIONS ISSUED FOR THE COMMITTEE BY
MESSRS. WATTS & CO.
Agnostic Problems. Being an Examination of Some Questions
of the Deepest Interest, as Viewed from the Agnostic Standpoint.
By R. Bithell, B.Sc. Ph.D. Cheap Popular Edition, cloth, 2s. 6d.
post free.
_____
id. each, by post ij£d.,
Agnosticism and Immortality. By S. Laing, author of “ Modern
Science and Modern Thought,” etc.
Humanity and Dogma. By Amos Waters.
What the Old Testament Says About Itself. By Julian.
The Old Testament Unhistoric and Unscientific. By Julian.
The Four Gospels. By Julian.
The Subject of the Four Gospels. By Julian.
LIBERTY OF BEQUESTS COMMITTEE.
This Committee is formed for procuring the passing of a law
legalising bequests for Secular and Free Thought purposes.
Subscriptions in furtherance of the object of this Committee may
be sent to Mr. George Anderson, Hon. Treasurer, 35a, Great
George Street, London, S.W.
�6
IS’
Part IV.
THE SUBJECT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
In the former paper we dwelt on the books called
“ Gospels,” and showed them to be unworthy of credit;
we will now take up the subject of the main character,
Jesus, and show why the memoirs cannot be historically
true.
The Birth of Jesus.—Fortunately, both Matthew and
Luke have given us particulars of the birth of Jesus,
which may be tested : so that we are not left without
data. Matthew informs us that when Jesus was born
in Bethlehem, in the days of Herod the King, there
came wise men (Magi) from the East to Jerusalem,
saying, Where is he that is born—King of the Jews—
for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to
worship him ?
After the murder of Julius Caesar, Antony constituted
his friend Herod “ King of Judea.” This was b.c. 40.
He reigned somewhat less than 37 years, and died at
the age of 70, b.c. 4. Towards the close of his life he
suffered much from ulceration of the bowels, and, being
ordered by his physicians to try the warm baths of
Callirhoe, he was absent from Jerusalem about two
years, and died at Jericho, on his way home; so that he
was not in Jerusalem at all after B.c. 6. If, therefore,
the Magi had an interview with him, it must have been
before he started for Callirhoe—that is, before b.c. 6.
Now look what Luke says. He tells us that Jesus
was born at Bethlehem when Cyrenius was governor of
Judaea and Augustus Emperor of Rome. Cyrenius, or
Quirinus, was pro-consul of Syria a.d. 5-14, and
Augustus died a.d. 5 ; so that the birth of Jesus, accord
ing to Luke, was a.d. 5. According to Matthew, it was
�44
THE old and new testament examined.
b.c. 6 or 7, a difference of eleven or twelve years. As
both these writers were guided into all truth by the Holy
Ghost, I must leave it to that unerring authority to re
concile these two accounts. We, who are guided by
common sense, cannot see how 6 or 7 b.c. is the same
date as a.d. 5 or 6.
But there is just another little difficulty : how came
Mary and Joseph to be wandering about Bethlehem for
two years ? They lived in Galilee, went to Bethlehem to
be taxed, and, as the caravansary was full, took up their
quarters in an out-house, a kind of cave used occasion
ally as a shed for oxen ; and here Mary was confined.
A new star, we are told, appeared at the time in Persia,
which the Magi, by some occult science, knew to
announce the birth of a child in Judea, destined to
become King of the Jews; but he never was, From
Ispahan to Jerusalem, as a caravan travels, would be
some 1,500 miles over pathless deserts, lofty mountains,
and numberless deviations from a bee-line, or, as we say
in England, “as the crow flies.” Herod himself calcu
lated that the journey would take somewhat less than
two years. What business had Mary and Joseph to be
loitering about this cave for the best part of two years ?
And a child about two years old is not generally swathed
in swaddling-clothes and laid in a manger. Mary was
well enough to go down into Egypt; why on earth did
she not return home ?
See what a host of fabrications hang on this fable.
Jesus could not have been born b.c. 6 or 7, and also a.d. 5.
As Herod was not alive, and was not at Jerusalem, the
Magi could not have had an interview with him, and
there was no slaughter of the Innocents. Mary and
Joseph were not at Bethlehem, nor did they go down
into Egypt.
The Death of Jesus Uncertain.—It has been stated
already that three of the evangelists assure us that Jesus
was crucified after the Pascha ; but one of them insists
that he was “ crucified, dead, and buried ” before that
feast was held. As they all profess to speak what they
did know, and some, at least, assure us they were eye
witnesses of the event, what are we to say ?
Mark tells us that he (Jesus) was crucified at nine
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
45
o’clock in the morning, and at twelve o’clock, or noon
day, an Egyptian darkness covered all the land for three
hours. This could not have been an eclipse, seeing it
was full moon. John tells us that Jesus wras not crucified,
but under examination at twelve o’clock, or mid-day. If
John is right, Mark must be wrong; for he could not
have been three hours on the cross, and there was no
miraculous darkness at the time.
Basilides (110-160) tells us that Christ was not
crucified, but that Simon of Cynene suffered in his
stead.
According to Irenseus, Jesus was about fifty when he
died; but, according to general belief, he was about
thirty-three. Irenaeus, however, seems to be supported
by the remark of the Jews: “Thou art not yet fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?” Suppose the
latter to have been the age of Jesus at crucifixion, then,
according to Irenaeus, the crucifixion took place a.d. 50 ;
according to Luke, it took place a.d. 38; according to
Dionysius Exiguus, it was a.d. 33; according to Euse
bius, a.d. 31 ; according to Jerome and Scaliger, a.d. 30;
according to Anger, Bengel, Petavius, Winer, and Usher,
it was a.d. 29 ; according to Ewald, it was a.d. 28 ;
according to Idler, a.d. 23; according to Bunsen, a.d. 18;
and according to Matthew, a.d. 17. A difference hardly
consistent with historic accuracy.
Resurrection and Ascension Uncertain.—As the birth
and death are uncertain, so are the resurrection and
ascension. Matthew tells us it was a general belief
among the Jews, long after the crucifixion, that the dead
body was stolen out of the sepulchre during the night by
some of the disciples. The sepulchre being in a private
garden would render this more feasible; for no doubt
the master, his gardener, and others of his household,
would be allowed a freedom denied to strangers ; and
even soldiers and policemen can shut their eyes for a
consideration. You say it would be a capital offence.
Granted. But hundreds of examples can be quoted
where gaolers have connived at the escape of their
prisoners; and, in this case, all the high officers of
Jerusalem would look over the offence. As for Pilate,
we well know that he was completely under their thumb.
�46
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Nothing can be a greater proof of this than his giving
up Jesus to death after declaring in open court that he
could find no offence whatever in him. If it be said
that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion, the reply
is, Where is the proof that he ever died ? Pilate evidently
thought it most unlikely. He could not have been
fastened to the cross above two hours, according to the
Fourth Gospel; and we are told that criminals often lived
on a cross for several days. If Jesus only swooned,
then his appearance afterwards was by no means wonder
ful. Indubitably what appeared to the disciples was
flesh and blood; for it ate food, was palpable to the
touch, and in every respect resembled the man of
Nazareth so well known.
In regard to the ascension, Matthew omits all men
tion of it. The last twelve verses of Mark, in which it
is mentioned, are interpolated, and are marked as such
in the new version. John says nothing about it, so that
Luke is our only authority for the hypothesis, and the
Gospel of Luke is a mere compilation, voted into the
canonical Scriptures by only a single vote. Elijah’s
voyage through the air was a tale of Jewish mythology;
and the ascension of Jesus was not difficult of credibility.
The Jews believed that God and his angels, as well as
Satan and his imps, held free intercourse with man, so
that coming down from Heaven and coming up from
Hell were common occurrences ; but what is meant by
up and down is not so easy of explanation.
A-W Mentioned by Roman or Other Writers.—As
Judaea was a Roman province belonging to that of Syria,
and had a pro-consul of its own, it must have been filled
with Romans in all the upper walks of society. There
wTere the court and household of Pilate, a goodly army of
Roman soldiers with their officers, the collectors of the
tribute, and other officials almost without number, be
sides the constant intercourse on festival days and for
purposes of commerce. So that any events of unusual
occurrence would get noised abroad, and would spread
like wildfire.
There was no lack of authors in those days—Jewish,
Greek, and Roman, in every line of literature. In fact,
it was the Augustan age of letters. And never since
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
47
the foundation of Rome were authors so numerous—
dramatists, satirists, poets, gossip litterateurs, and so on.
If the wonderful things recorded in the Gospels had
really happened, they must have been known, they must
have been talked about, they must have been referred to,
by some of the literary gossips of the day. Miracles, like
feeding thousands of people with a few small loaves and
fishes, raising the dead to life again, ghosts walking out
of their tombs, miraculous darkness covering all the
land for several hours, earthquakes, mysterious voices
from the clouds, rising through the air into the clouds—
these things are so uncommon, so striking, they must
have formed topics of general conversation, and must
have found place in the literature of the day. It is in
credible that no one, except the four interested partisans,
should ever have referred to them. Yet the writers of
the first century are wholly silent about them. They do
not even mention the name of Jesus. Josephus was a
Jew who actually lived in the country where these things
are said to have occurred; but Josephus alludes not to
them, although he wrote a history of the times. Philo,
Pliny, Justus, etc., have not so much as named the name
of Jesus or of any one of his apostles. None of them
even hint at the marvellous works mentioned in the
Gospels. The omission is so striking, so demonstrative,
that something had to be done to supply it; and accord
ingly, in that uncritical age, when books were not broad
cast over the land as they are now, and forgeries, before
printing was invented, were easy, a purple patch, wholly
cut of character with the rest of the book, was foisted
into the manuscript copy of Josephus; and, if, indeed,
“The Annals of Tacitus” are not altogether a forgery,
a line or two was thrust into them also, as a sort of bythe-by, ten times more suspicious than absolute silence.
Perhaps there is no evidence so incontestable as such
forgeries as these, that the Gospel narratives are not
narratives of current events, but a sort of religious
romance of a much later date.
Of course, it will be said, how can the name of Christ
be accounted for, with such festivals as Christmas Day
and all the rites connected with the Christian religion,
if there is no foundation of truth in the Christian story ?
�48
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Well, we ourselves have the weekly festivals of Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday; but who
believes in the gods Tuesco, Woden, Thor, Frega, or
Saturn ? We have the annual festivals of January and
March; but who believes in Janus or Mars ? The
Romans teemed with allusions to Romulus: streets were
named after him ; there were knights of Romulus, the
highest of the aristocracy ; there were colleges of Romulian priests; there were numerous festivals and rites
alluding to the supposititious founder; there were serious
histories, hymns, and popular songs ; in fact, Rome is
nothing without Romulus; yet Romulus was a mere
myth; his godfather and virgin mother were mere
myths; his ascent into Heaven is a mere myth ; his
being suckled by a wolf is a mere myth ; his foundation
of a city, his wonderful wars, and his civil institutions
are mere dreams of the imagination. Here, then, is our
answer, and I think it is unanswerable.
If Jesus was the Son of God, his Relationships were
indeed Strange.—We are told that Jesus of Nazareth
had Mary for his mother and the Holy Ghost for his
father, and, furthermore, that he was God, the equal of
God the Father, and that the three persons were insepar
ably one, both before the incarnation and after the
ascension. Assuming this to be true, where does it land
us ? Look :—
1. He must have been his own grandfather, his own
father, and his own son :—his own grandfather, seeing
he was one with God the Father; his own father, seeing
he was one with the Holy Ghost, and his own son,
being the son of God the Father.
2. He was his mother’s father or maker, his mother’s
husband, and his mother’s son :—his mother’s maker,
seeing that by him all things were made, and without
him nothing was made that is made; his mother’s
husband, seeing he is all one with the Holy Ghost; and
his mother’s son, seeing he was the son of Mary.
3. As God, no one could call him to account. As
man, he must be called to account like other men. As
judge, he must judge himself, and number himself with
the goats or sheep.
4. Being one with God, God was one with him. On
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
49
the cross God forsook him. Therefore, on the cross he
forsook himself. It is not easy for a man to jump out
of himself.
5. Being man and God, he was not man, like other
men. Being God and man, he was not God, like God
the Father and God the Spirit. He was, therefore,
neither one with God nor one with man. What, then,
was he ?
6. If, as he asserted, he could have avoided death, he
died of his own free will, and, therefore, was virtually
guilty of his own death. Look. If a man is thrown
into a river, and could swim ashore if he liked, but does
not choose to do so, he is guilty of felo de se, morally, if
not legally. And if Jesus could have saved his life if he
liked, but did not choose to do so, morally he was guilty
of his own death ; and so the Bible teaches, “ I lay
down my life of myself. I have power to lay it down
or not.” The case is not the same as that of a patriot
dying in battle, or a martyr dying for his faith-sake. A
patriot does not go into battle for the sake of dying, but
risks his life out of love for his country, and loses it. A
martyr does not believe for the sake of being burnt to
death, but suffers death rather than live a living lie. The
cases are not at all parallel. Jesus, we are told, went
into battle with prepense to die. He was a martyr for
the sake of being a martyr. A condition very different.
TW Fall, no Redemption.—However, when all is said,
we must remember that the whole story of Jesus, from
beginning to end, is inextricably connected with Eve and
the Forbidden Fruit. This myth has already been
alluded to in a previous chapter, but cannot wholly
be ignored in this connection.
No one can really
believe that extremely foolish and illogical story about
the Fall to be sober history. It is such a mass of
confusion and contradiction, such a Pelion upon Ossa
of injustice, that it will not bear the slightest examina
tion. A talking serpent chatting familiarly with a young
woman, as a gossip, is the first absurdity. Then the
serpent was no serpent at all, because it did not creep
on the ground till after the fall; and, if not a creeping
thing (serpens), it was no serpent. Nor was it, for it
was the Devil in masquerade. The Devil pretended to
�5°
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
be a serpent before there was such a reptile as a serpent,
and, because the Devil chose to assume this form and
fashion, the whole ophidian order were deprived of feet.
It is too ridiculous. Because the Devil assumed a false
character, the Devil was not punished, but serpents,
who had no more to do with it than the North Star.
Eve believed the lying fiend; and, therefore, you and I,
born thousands of years afterwards, are tainted with
original sin. It is monstrous. Six thousand years ago
a. man named Adam ate sour graspes; and, therefore,
your teeth and mine are set on edge. Because the Devil
deluded a young woman, therefore it was absolutely
necessary for God to become man that he might be put
to death. Why, how is it that God did not break the
neck of the lying fiend ? He was able to cast him out
of Heaven, and surely he might have flung him neckand-crop out of the garden. Had he no will to crush
sin in the bud ? Why did he let Satan drive Adam and
Eve out of Paradise, bring a flood of waters on the earth
to destroy it, drag God’s only and well-beloved son out
of Heaven to be nailed to the cross as a malefactor,
when, by a single word, he might have prevented all this
iniquity, misery, and death? It cannot be! No, it
cannot be ' It is too revolting, too absurd. Yet, if not
true—true every inch of it—the story of Jesus falls to
the ground. The two stories hang on one thread. If
one falls, both fall. Jesus may have lived, he may have
been the wisest and best of the sons of men; but, if
there was no Fall, there was no Redemption, and Church
“ orthodoxy ” is the grossest of all heterodoxies. There
is no middle path. If the tale of the talking serpent is
a myth—and it cannot be otherwise—the tale of the Re
demption is a myth also. If there was no Paradise Lost,
there was no Paradise Regained.
The Prevailing Opinion of the First Five Centuries
was “Arian"—-What is now called Arianism for the
sake of brevity was undoubtedly the prevailing faith of
the first four centuries; and the first three Gospels favour
this view of the “man Christ Jesus” far more than the
subsequent one maintained by Athanasius. The space
at my disposal is too short to enter upon a detailed proof
of this subject; but, to the best of my knowledge, it
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
51
has never been denied that the Church of Pella, presided
over first by James, and afterwards by Simon or Simeon,
was, to all intents and purposes, in sympathy with the
views afterwards set forth by the presbyter Arius.
The great contest between the manhood and divinity
of Jesus pervaded the third and fourth centuries, but
ran on, though less severely, for ages before and after
wards. Dr. Harold Browne tells us that the voice of the
Church is final on all points of discipline and doctrine.
Well, it may be so ; but the voice is most uncertain. In
360 the Council of Ariminum, convened by the Emperor
Constantius, condemned Arianism; but in 484 the
Council of Carthage confirmed the doctrines held by
Arius, and exiled all the bishops who entertained any
other religious views.
Before these two councils, the great Council of Nicaea,
in 325, had decreed Arius to be a “pernicious heretic,”
and put forth this loud protest: “ The Catholic and
Apostolic Church anathematises all who say that there
ever was a time when the Son did not exist.” And
it goes on to curse “ all and any who believe the Son
had no existence prior to his birth in Bethlehem, or that
he was created out of nothing, or that say he was
of another substance to the Father, or that he was
capable of change.” As, however, the father must be
prior to the son, I fear this “ voice ” is vox et praterea
nihil. And, as Jesus changed from God to a compound
of God and man, grew in grace as well as in stature, and
returned to Heaven an imponderable body, I cannot see
how any one is to escape the anathema maranatha of
Nicaea.
Notwithstanding these bellowings from Nicaea, the
Church of Constantinople dared to convene three
Councils (one in 336, another in 339, and a third in 360),
all of which gave the lie direct to the judgment of Nicaea,
and pronounced the views of Arius to be alone orthodox,
scriptural, and true. Which was the “ voice of the
Church”—the packed Council of Nicaea, called expressly
to condemn Arius, or the three subsequent Councils of
Constantinople ?
No doubt Carthage and Constantinople were infinitely
more important places than Nicaea in Asia Minor, and
�52
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Rimini in Italy. They were the chief cities of the civi
lised world—the London and Berlin of the time. They
would command all the learning and scholarship of the
world. The voice of the Church, spoken at Nicsea and
Rimini, declared Arius to be a spawn of the Devil. The
voice of the Church, spoken at Carthage and Constan
tinople, declared him the expositor of truth. The former
repudiated the Arian bishops, the latter dismissed
Athanasius and his followers.
The contest still ran on. In 403 the Council of Arles
condemned Athanasius as “ a pestilent fellow,” no better
than Simon Magus, if indeed so good. Other Councils
followed, and swore that the voice of the Church uttered
at Arles was the voice of the “ father of lies.” As all
Councils were composed of Church dignitaries and leaders
of the laity, it is not a little perplexing to know which
is which; but of one thing we may be quite sure, that
the voice of truth is always one and the same: 11 Discute,
quod audias, omne ; quod credas, froba.”
The “Logici ” of Jesus.—We are constantly told that
the words spoken by Jesus were so wise, so beyond the
reach of human genius, that never man did speak, or
could speak, as he did, and, therefore, he must have
been divine. I candidly confess I cannot call to mind
a single sentence to justify this laudation.
I suppose the most characteristic “ logia ” were those
in the Sermon on the Mount; but how utterly impractic
able are many of those precepts; and, if carried out,
how utterly would society be subverted 1 The reference
to the “lilies of the field ” is very pretty; but the lesson
taught is practically absurd. I think it is Paul who
says : “ If any provide not for his own, he is worse than
an infidel;” but in the Sermon on the Mount it is:
“Take no thought of the morrow;” “Lay not up
treasures on earth.” Sufficient for the day are provisions
for the day. Fathers, do not lay up for your children ; do
not provide for their education and for placing them in
life. Mothers, lay up no store in your larders. Begin
each day with an empty purse and empty larder, like
sparrows and lilies; for you cannot make yourself an
inch taller by trying ever so hard. Very true ; but this
does not bear upon the question. You might just as
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
53
well say, Do not buy a loaf of bread for to-morrow, or
put a shilling in the saving’s bank, because you cannot
make a sun or moon, or add a cubit to an oa.k tree. It
is a non sequitur, and very foolish. God will provide,
says the preacher ; but he does not. Starving hundreds
is the proof. If man does not provide, there is no hope
for him. I do not think the provision of sparrows has
much to do with the question ; for it would apply to rats,
bugs, and all other vermin, the pests of the earth. How
far garbage is a provision by God for rats is a long ques
tion ; but I am quite sure all that is said about the
growth of the lilies will apply to nettles and poisonous
weeds; though perhaps it would not be so pastoral.to
say, Behold the choking weeds of a corn-field, which
smother the good seed ; God provided them with their
proper sustenance. Behold the vermin which annoy our
warehouses and devour our corn—the bugs, the fleas,
and the ticks—God provided them their food. This is
less pretty, but just as true.
See what a wretched fallacy is this thriftless teaching.
“ Go to the ant, and learn of him.” No, no, Solomon 1
Lay up no store at all. If this precept were acted on,
there could be no progress, no commerce, no little nestegg to help our children to settle in life. The world
would be a world of beggars, incapable of helping each
other. Would this banish care? If a mother knew
not how to provide the next meal——if a father had
neither house nor home, nor penny in his pocket, nor
means of living, would he be free from care ? I trow
not. He would be devoured with anxiety, worried to
death; paralysed in hope, without energy, without
stimulus to exertion, without motive of improvement.
A terrible, terrible world would this be then. It is bad
enough now; but it would be all workhouse then, with
no one to pay the piper.
Of the same impracticable character is that direction :
“ Sell all thou hast and give unto the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in Heaven.” If so, Heaven is not
the award of faith, but the reward of alms-giving. Yet
I remember something is said about “ If I give all my
goods to feed the poor, it profiteth me nothing.” Io
carry out this direction would pauperise and paralyse
�54
THE old and new testament examined.
society. Of all the useless lumber that ever lived
hermits were the worst. What good did the pillar
saints do—standing on one foot on the top of a monu
ment for thirty or forty years ? What good did hermits
do by never washing their bodies or changing their linen
or by feeding on roots and garbage far from the sight of
man
Such foolery is a mere travesty of holiness
And I very much doubt whether their reward in Heaven
will equal that of John Howard and Mr. Peabody
I have instanced the unwisdom of the Nazarene in
these few directions ; but his whole teaching from begin
ning to end is wrong. It is intensely Jewish, and never
rises above an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
Honesty is the best policy ” is the alpha and omega of
the Gospel teaching, if for honesty you substitute creu
Believe in Christ as the Messiah, and great
shall be your reward in Heaven. Holiness has the
promise of the life that now is and of that which is to
come. If you take up your cross now, you shall wear
a crown hereafter. There is not one word about the
dignity of morality, the manliness of benevolence the
self-reward of good action ; it is always policy, selfish
policy, never reaching beyond the little insignificant
circle of “ I myself I.”
. The Teaching of Jesus was that of a Jew.—“ Go not
mto the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not ” was the direction of Jesus to
his seventy disciples. Can national exclusiveness go
further. “ I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel ” is a similar dictum. “ It is not meet
to take the children’s bread and cast it unto dogs.” I
maintain there is nothing like universality in such sen
tences as these—no large-heartedness. God is no
respecter of persons, but the equal father of all. It is
Jewish prejudice, Jewish exclusiveness. And even when
it is said, “ Go ye into all nations and teach the gospel
to every creature,” nothing more is meant than this:
Go wherever the Jews are scattered abroad, and tell the
Israel of God what I have taught you.
The Parables and Miracles Objectionable. —But I must
be brief. As the teaching of Jesus is most objection
able, many of his parables and “ miracles ” are not less
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
55
so. The parable of the unjust steward is wretched
morality. The miracle of Cana of Galilee, and the
miracle of the devils driven into the swine, are quite
indefensible. That some fourteen firkins of strong wine
should be supplied to a family party, when all the guests
had “ well drunken,” would make the feast worse than a
Scotch orgie. Say there were fourteen guests, this would
give a firkin apiece. A firkin is nine gallons, or thirtysix quarts. Pretty well that for a sober party well soaked
already. Thirty-six pints of wine for Mary, and thirtysix for her son ! Quite enough, I fancy, for a temper
ance club. But, after all, the most objectionable of the
miracles is the raising of the dead. Take that of
Lazarus, for example, always flourished in our faces as
proof of proofs of the divinity of Christ, but, to my
thinking, a demonstration to the very contrary. Of
course Lazarus was a good man, for Jesus loved him
dearly; and, being such, would go to Paradise imme
diately after death. Was it the part of a benevolent
being to bring him from Paradise to earth again—from
the joys which know no ending to a vale of tears ? In
Paradise he was reaping the reward of the battle of life
well fought, the prize of his high calling; on earth he
was in the thick of the fight once more, and the race
was still to be run. There he could know no sickness ;
here sickness is the birthright of all. There death was
swallowed up in victory; here death is the wages of sin.
Was it the part of a God to call Lazarus from Heaven
to earth ? Jesus, we are told, knew what Heaven was,
and he knew what earth is—a place of grief, sorrow, and
disappointment. Was it the part of a God to bring the
angel from before the throne, to tear from his brow his
golden crown, pluck off his robe of righteousness, and
lay again upon him the cross ? Would you think that
man did a kind act who reduced a prince to the state of
a beggar; who drove him from palace to hovel; severed
him from the wise and good, to herd with fallen men ?
Would it be an act of Divine benevolence to change his
“ pleasures for evermore ” into want and misery ?
If a God, Jesus knew what Heaven is, and he knew
on earth that every man is “ a man of sorrow, acquainted
with grief.” He must have known that no unkinder act
�56
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED,
could have been done than to call his friend from Para
dise to a sinful world, where the Devil goes about daily
seeking whom he may devour.
It was not only unspeakably unkind, it was infamously
unjust, to put Lazarus on his trial again. He had won
his crown, and ought to have been allowed to wear it;
he had finished his course, and ought not to have been
set another task. Suppose, in his second life, he had
proved a Judas or Barabbas—and truly the injustice
put upon him was enough to wean him from ever trust
ing again to the promises of God—suppose, I say, he
had turned out an outcast, what then ? No 1 no ! He
had changed the Church militant for the Church trium
phant, and had no right to be degraded to the rank and
file again. It was unthinking, cruel, unjust. Such a
God could be no God at all.
A miracle of this sort might have served to display
the power of Jesus might gratify his vanity and love of
popular applause might astound a Jewish mob; but
could only make the thoughtful grieve, and drive those
who trusted in the word of God to utter infidelity.
�
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 subject of the four gospels
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Julian
Propagandist Press Committee
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [43]-56 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (RPA 2003), Appx. 1. 'Julian' is the pseudonym of Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (1810-1897). Issued for the Propagandist Press Committee. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1891]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N421
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The subject of the four gospels), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible. N.T. Gospels
Jesus Christ
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/b23116cb40686200079550d4853ed952.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=FsP4wrqEo0sNeoBLois76CSQ4hDkUdA%7EI-TbDwlTuM0n51PAwbgwVARMuz874vSIcmYfvc5CT0O49nUEhqRMtxaU88UDrrs%7EBZfGgqn5Xy27Pgy7Ist2jYvgQoFJZCL94WdB9ldtxq3LtGBhFuR-D0oMuHcKkn1NguHJn0-PxvxlgCwSynaYoODt61yqqKs7xKeavHNzrcOxGMcmtrywAsWYyZSnkyvmxpfdhB8b9XWyMCSevnJQurIYu-Q0MJHLFZAj1oTLv9ck33iQS3UG%7EtFedNcX7YQGOgFpogvQmkcbcmlq1vyTIkjNxMdVdD60IceBgwCaCtdDBBk-zeJ2OA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
28d1ea01107831e79a5c87f92f3029d1
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
ERNEST
RENAN
AND
JESUS CHRIST
BY
COLONEL R. G. INGERSOLL.
PRICE TWOPENCE.
LONDON :
R. FOEDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.O.
1892.
�LONDON
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 14 CLERKENWELL GREEN, E.C.
�ERNEST RENAN.
“ Blessed are those
Whose blood and judgment are so well co-mingled
That they are not a pipe for fortune’s finger
To sound what stop she please.”
Ernest Kenan is dead. Another source of light ; another
force of civilisation ; another charming personality ; another
brave soul, graceful in thought, generous in deed ; a sculptor
in speech, a colorist in words—clothing all in the poetry born
of a delightful union of heart and brain—has passed to the
realm of rest.
Reared under the influences of Catholicism, educated for
the priesthood, yet, by reason of his natural genius, he began
to think. Forces that utterly subjugate and enslave the
mind of mediocrity sometimes rouse to thought and action
the superior soul.
Renan began to think—a dangerous thing for a Catholic
to do. Thought leads to doubt, doubt to investigation,
investigation to truth—the enemy of all superstition.
He lifted the Catholic extinguisher from the light and
flame of reason. He found that his mental vision was im
proved. He read the ¡Scriptures for himself, examined them
as he did other books not claiming to be inspired. He
found the same mistakes, the same prejudices, the same
miraculous impossibilités in the book attributed to God that
he found in those known to have been written by men.
Into the path of reason, or rather into the highway, Renan
was led by Henriette, his Bister, to whom he pays a tribute
that has the perfume of a perfect flower.
“ I was,” writes Renan, “ brought up by women and priests,
and therein lies the whole explanation of my good qualities
and of my defects.” In most that he wrote is the tenderness
of woman, only now and then a little touch of the priest
showing itself, mostly in a reluctance to spoil the ivy by
tearing down some prison built by superstition.
In spite of the heartless “ scheme ” of things he still found
it in his heart to say, “ When God shall be complete, He
will be just,” at the same time saying that “ nothing proves
to us that there exists in the world a central consciousness—
�(4)
a soul of the universe—and nothing proves the contrary.”
So, whatever was the verdict of his brain, his heart asked for
immortality. He wanted his dream, and he was willing that
others should have theirs. Such is the wish and will of all
great souls.
He knew the Church thoroughly and anticipated what
would finally be written about him by churchmen : “ Having
some experience of ecclesiastical writers I can sketch out
in advance the way my biography will be written in Spanish
in some Catholic review, of Santa Fe, in the year 2,000.
Heavens ! how black I shall be! I shall be so all the more,
because the Church when she feels that she is lost will end
with malice. She will bite like a mad dog.”
He anticipated such a biography because he had thought
for himself, and because he had expressed his thoughts—
because he had declared that “ our universe, within the reach
of our experiment is not governed by any intelligent reason.
God, as the common herd understand him, the living God,
the acting God—the God-Providence, does not show himself
in the universe ”—because he attacked the mythical and the
miraculous in the life of Christ and sought to rescue from the
calumnies of ignorance and faith a serene and lofty soul.
The time has arrived when Jesus must become a myth or a
man. The idea that he was the infinite God must be
abandoned by all who are not religiously insane. Those who
have given up the claim that he was God, insist that he was
divinely appointed and illuminated; that he was a perfect
man—the highest possible type of the human race, and,
consequently, a perfect example for all the world.
As time goes on, as men get wider or grander or more
complex ideas of life, as the intellectual horizon broadens,
the idea that Christ was perfect may be modified. _
The New Testament seems to describe several individuals
under the same name, or at least one individual who passed
through several stages or phases of religious development.
Christ is described as a devout Jew, as one who endeavored
to comply in all respects with the old law. Many sayings
are attributed to him consistent with this idea. He certainly
was a Hebrew in belief and feeling when he said “ Swear not
by heaven, because it is God’s throne, nor by earth, for it is
his footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is his holy city.”
These reasons were in exact accordance with the mythology
of the Jews. God was regarded simply as an enormous man,
as one who walked in the garden in the cool of the evening,
as one who had met man face to face, who had conversed
with Moses for forty days upon Mount Sinai, as a great king,
with a throne in the heavens, using the earth to rest his feet
upon, and regarding Jerusalem as his holy city.
�Then we find plenty of evidence that he wished to reform
the religion of the Jews; to fulfil the law, not to abrogate it.
Then there is still another change: he has ceased his efforts
to reform that religion and has become a destroyer. He
holds the Temple in contempt and repudiates the idea that
Jerusalem is the holy city. He concludes that it is unneces
sary to go to some mountain or some building to worship or
to find God, and insists that the heart is the true Temple,
that ceremonies are useless, that all pomp and pride and
Bhow are needless, and that it is enough to worship God
under heaven’s dome, in spirit and in truth.
It is impossible to harmonise these views unless we admit
that Christ was the subject of growth and change; that in
consequence of growth and change he modified his views ;
that, from wanting to preserve Judaism as it was, he became
convinced that it ought to be reformed. That he then aban
doned the idea of reformation, and made up his mind that
the only reformation of which the Jewish religion was
capable was destruction. If he was in fact a man, then the
course he pursued was natural; but if he was God, it is per
fectly absurd. If we give to him perfect knowledge, then it
is impossible to account for change or growth. If, on the
other hand, the ground is taken that he was a perfect man,
then, it might be asked, was he perfect when he wished to
preserve, or when he wished to reform, or when he resolved
to destroy, the religion of the Jews ? If he is to be regarded
as perfect, although not divine, when did he reach per
fection ?
It is perfectly evident that Christ, or the character that
bears that name, imagined that the world was about to be
destroyed, or at least purified by fire, and that, on account of
this curious belief, he became the enemy of marriage, of all
earthly ambition and of all enterprise. With that view in
his mind, he said to himself, “ Why should we waste our
energies in producing food for destruction ? Why should we
endeavor to beautify a world that is so soon to perish ?”
Filled with the thought of coming change, he insisted that
there was but one important thing, and that was for each man
to save his soul. He should care nothing for the ties of
kindred, nothing for wife or child or property, in the shadow
•of the coming disaster. He should take care of himself. He
endeavored, as it is said, to induce men to desert all they had,
to let the dead bury the dead, and follow him. He told his
disciples, or those he wished to make his disciples, according
to the Testament, that it was their duty to desert wife and
child and property, and if they would so desert kindred and
wealth, he would reward them here and hereafter.
We know now—if we know anything—that Jesus was mis-
�( B )
taken about the coming of the end, and we know now that he
was greatly controlled in his ideas of life, by that mistake.
Believing that the end was near, he said, “ Take no thought
for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye shall drink or
wherewithal ye shall be clothed.” It was in view of the
destruction of the world that he called the attention of his
disciples to the lily that toiled not and yet excelled Solomon
in the glory of its raiment. Having made this mistake,
having acted upon it, certainly we cannot now say that he
was perfect in knowledge.
He is regarded by many millions as the impersonation of
patience, of forbearance, of meekness and mercy, and yet,
according to the account, he said many extremely bitter
words, and threatened eternal pain.
We also know, if the account be true, that he claimed to
have supernatural power, to work miracles, to cure the blind
and to raise the dead, and we know that be did nothing of
the kind. So if the writers of the New Testament tell the
truth as to what Christ claimed, it is absurd to say that he
was a perfect man. If honest, he was deceived, and those
who are deceived are not perfect.
There is nothing in the New Testament, so far as we know,,
that touches on the duties of nation to nation, or of nation
to its citizens; nothing of human liberty; not one word
about education; not the faintest hint that there is such a
thing as science; nothing calculated to stimulate industry,
commerce, or invention; not one word in favor of art, of
music or anything calculated to feed or clothe the body,
nothing to develop the brain of man.
When it is assumed that the life of Christ, as described in
the New Testament, is perfect, we at least take upon our
selves the burden of deciding what perfection is. People who
asserted that Christ was divine, that he was actually God,
reached the conclusion, without any laborious course of
reasoning, that all he said and did was absolute perfection.
They said this because they had first been convinced that he
was divine. The moment his divinity is given up and the
assertion is made that he was perfect, we are not permitted
to reason in that way. They said he was God, therefore
perfect. Now, if it is admitted that he was human, the con
clusion that he was perfect does not follow. We then take
the burden upon ourselves of deciding what perfection is.. To
decide what is perfect is beyond the powers of the human mind.
Renan, in spite of his education, regarded Christ as a man,
and did the best he could to account for the miracles that had
been attributed to him, for the legends that had gathered
about his name, and tbe impossibilities connected with his
career, and also tried to account for the origin or birth o
�(1 )
these miracles, of these legends, of these myths, including
the resurrection and ascension. . I am not satisfied with all
the conclusions he reached or with all the paths he travelled.
The refraction of light caused by passing through a woman’s
tears is hardly a sufficient foundation for a belief in so mira
culous a miracle as the bodily ascension of Jesus Christ.
There is another thing attributed to Christ that seems to
me conclusive evidence against the claim of perfection. Christ
is reported to have said that all sins could be forgiven except
the sin against the Holy Ghost. This sin, however, is not
defined. Although Christ died for the whole world, that
through him all might be saved, there is this one terrible
exception: There is no salvation for those who have sinned,
or who may hereafter sin, against the Holy Ghost. Thou
sands of persons are now in asylums, having lost their reason
because of their fear that they had committed this unknowu,
this undefined, this unpardonable sin.
It is said that a Roman Emperor went through a form of
publishing his laws or proclamations, posting them so high
on pillars that they could not be read, and then took the lives
of those who ignorantly violated these unknown laws. He
was regarded as a tyrant, as a murderer. And yet, what
shall we say of one who declared that the sin against the
Holy Ghost was the only one that could not be forgiven, and
then left an ignorant world to guess what that sin is ? Un
doubtedly this horror is an interpolation.
There is something like it in the Old Testament. It is
asserted by Christians that the Ten Commandments are the
foundation of all law and of all civilisation, and you will find
lawyers insisting that the Mosaic Code was the first informa
tion that man received on the subject of law; that before
that time the world was without any knowledge of justice or
mercy. If this be true the Jews had no divine laws, no real
instruction on any legal subject until the Ten Command
ments were given. Consequently, before that time there had
been proclaimed or published no law against the worship of
other gods or of idols. Moses had been on Mount Sinai,
talking with J ehovah. At the end of the dialogue he received
the Tables of Stone and started down the mountain for the
Purpose of imparting this information to his followers.
When he reached the camp he heard music. He saw people
dancing, and he found that in his absence Aaron and the
rest of the people had cast a molten calf which they were
then worshipping. This so enraged Moses that he broke the
Table of Stone and made preparations for the punishment of
the Jews. Remember that they knew nothing about this law
and, according to. the modern Christian claims, could not
have known that it was wrong to melt gold and silver and
�mould it in the form of a calf. And yet Moses killed about
thirty thousand of these people for having violated a law of
which they had never heard; a law known only to one man
and one God. Nothing could be more unjust, more ferocious,
than this; and yet it can hardly be said to exceed in cruelty
the announcement that a certain sin was unpardonable and
then fail to define the sin. Possibly, to inquire what the sin
is, is the sin.
Renan regards Jesus as a man, and his work gets its value
from the fact that it is written from a human standpoint, At
the same time he, consciously or unconsciously, or may be
for the purpose of sprinking a little holy water on the heat of
religious indignation, now and then seems to speak of him as
more than human, or as having accomplished something that
man could not.
He asserts that “ the Gospels are in part legendary; that
they contain many things not true; that they are full of
miracles and of the supernatural.” At the same time he
insists that these legends, these miracles, these supernatural
things do not affect the truth of the probable things contained
in these writings. He sees, and sees clearly, that there is no
evidence that Matthew, or Mark, or Luke, or John wrote the
books attributed to them; that, as a matter of fact, the mere
title of “ according to Matthew,” “ according to Mark,” shows
that they were written by others who claimed them to be in
accordance with the stories that had been told by Matthew
or by Mark. So Renan takes the ground that the Gospel of
Luke is founded on anterior documents and “ is the work of
a man who selected, pruned and combined, and that the same
man wrote the Acts of the Apostles and in the same way.”
The Gospels were certainly written long after the events
described, and Renan finds the season foi' this in the fact that
the Christians believed that the world was about to end;
that, consequently, there was no need of composing books ;
it was only necessary for them to preserve in their hearts
during the little margin of time that remained a lively image
of him whom they soon expected to meet in the clouds. For
this reason the Gospels themselves had but little authority
for 150 years, the Christians relying on oral traditions.
Renan shows that there was not the slightest scruple about
inserting additions in the Gospels, variously combining them,
and in completing some by taking parts from others; that
the books passed from hand to hand, and that each one
transcribed in the margin of his copy the words and parables
he had found elsewhere which touched him; that it was not
until human tradition became weakened that the text bearing
the names of the ApoBtles became authoritative.
Renan has criticised the Gospels somewhat -in the same
�( 9 )
spirit that he would criticise a modern work. He saw clearly
that the metaphysics filling the discourses of John were
deformities and distortions, full of mysticism, hawing nothing
to do really with the character of J esus. He shows too
“ that the simple idea of the Kingdom of God, at the time the
•Gospel according to St. John was written, had faded away;
that the hope of the advent of Christ was growing dim, and
that from belief the disciples passed into discussion, from
•discussion to dogma, from dogma to ceremony,’ and, finding
that the new Heaven and the new Earth were not coming as
expected, they turned their attention to governing the old.
Heaven and the old Earth. The disciples were willing to. be
humble for a few days, with the expectation of wearing
crowns for ever. They were satisfied with poverty, believing
that the wealth of the world was to be theirs. The coming
of Christ, however, being for some unaccountable reason
delayed, poverty and humility grew irksome, and human
nature began to assert itself.
.
In the Gospel of John you will find the metaphysics of the
Church. There you find the Second Birth. There you find
the doctrine of the Atonement clearly set forth. There you
find that God died for the whole world, and that whosoever
believeth not in him is to be damned. There is nothing of
the kind in Matthew. Matthew makes Christ say that, if
you will forgive others, God will forgive you. The Gospel
“ according to Mark ” is the same. So is the Gospel “ accord
ing to Luke.” There is nothing about salvation through
belief, nothing about the Atonement. In Mark, in the last
chapter, the Apostles are told to go into all the world, and
preach the Gospel, with the statement that whoever believed
and was baptised should be saved, and whoever failed to
believe should be damned. But we now know that that is
an interpolation. Consequently, Matthew, Mark, and Luke
never had the faintest conception of the “ Christian religion.”
They knew nothing of the Atonement, nothing of salvation
by faith—nothing. So that, if a man had read only Matthew,
Mark, and Luke, and had strictly followed what .he found,
he would have found himself, after death, in perdition.
Renan finds that certain portions of the Gospel “ according
to John ” were added later; that the entire twenty-first
chapter is an interpolation; also that many places bear the
traces of erasures and corrections. So he says that it would
be “ impossible for anyone to compose a life of Jesus, with
any moaning in it, from the discourses which John attributes
to him, and he holds that this Gospel of John is full of
preaching, Christ demonstrating himself; full of argumenta
tion, full of stage effect, devoid of simplicity, with long argu
ments after each miracle, stiff and awkward discourses, the
�( 10 )
thaM°heT^Vev°dSl^ieJ?/-7e<i,1ta-1-” Ho aIs° insiste
1 • evidently “artificial portions, variations like
authors were, generally speaking, those to wS’thev are
d ¡verse ’ ihls ls, a back-handed stroke. Admitting fW
f S
that they are authentic; second, that they were written’about
the end of the first century; third, that they arZnot of eoual
inspiration?868’ S°
™ h6 18 coucerned> of the dogma of
One is at a loss to understand why four o-ognelg should
have been written. As a matter of fact, there cmbe on v
one true account of any occurrence, or of any number of
occurrences. Now, it must be taken for granted that an
nXelaZZs?8 I?6’
sbould there be
+i acc°?nts/ Tt may be answered that all were not to
to cover subsialtUlly the m grojn^ “ “““ atteml?ted
Gospeh fitted th 6™ Th™ fT cardinal directions and the
+,Osp dfcted tbe north, south, east, and west. Others said
that there were four principal winds-a gospel for each
legs '
migbt bave added that some animals have four
autho“ itS^“ th«?1**the farrative Portions have not the same
tho^nn 4 ^th^t many legends proceeded from the zeal of
the second Christian generation; that the narrative of Luke
; that sentences attributed to Jesus have
^ distorted and exaggerated; that the book was written
outside of Palestine and after the siege of Jerusalem £
Luke endeavors to make the different narrativesaXee
whTh 1hgd hhm f°r that. PUrpOse ; that he softens the paBsmes
mmvelK beco^%embarrassing; that he exaggerated the
marvellous, omitted errors in chronology; that he was a
and* whJ’l? ?aU. Who had not been an eye-witness himself,
and ZZes^+V^ 86611 ^e'witnes8es’ but who labors at texts
?s vaZZ f *
eir.sen8e t(? make them agree.” This certainly
Sent7£
\nsP5at1011- So “ Luke interprets the docu£sed fn dmg T° hlS
ldea; being a kind of anarchist,
®d to Property, and persuaded that the triumph of the
Lncri +8 aPPro.aching; that he was especially fond of the
Zf thl ?6S i0W1I1§ tbe conversion of sinners, the exaltation
them
anOient
to give
�(11)
Renan reached the conclusion that the Gospels are neither
biographies after the manner of Suetonius nor fictitious
legends in the style of Philostratus, but that they are
legendary biographies like the legen^ of the saints, the lives
of Plotinus and Isodore, m which historical, truth and. the
desire to present models of virtue are combined in various
degrees; that they are “ inexact ”; that they contain
numerous errors and discordances?’ So he takes the ground
that twenty or thirty years after Christ his reputation had
greatly increased, that “ legends had begun to gather about
him like clouds,” that “ death added to his perfection, freeing
him from all defects in the eyes of those who had loved him,
that his followers wrested the prophecies so that they might
fit him. They said, ‘ He is the Messiah. The Messiah, was
to do certain things; therefore Jesus did certain things.
Then an account would be given of the doing. All of which
of course shows that there can be maintained no theory ot
mit1isaadmitted that where individuals are witnesses of.the
same transaction, and where they agree upon the vital points
and disagree upon detail, the disagreement may be consistent
with their honesty, as tending to show that, they nave not
agreed upon a story; but if the witnesses are inspired of God
then there is no reason for their disagreeing on anything,
and if they do disagree it is a demonstration that they were
not inspired, but it is not a demonstration that they are not
honest. While perfect agreement may be evidence, ot
rehearsal, a failure to perfectly agree is not a demonstration
of the truth or falsity of the story; but if the witnesses claim
to be inspired, the slightest disagreement is a demonstration
that they were not inspired.
.
Renan reaches the conclusion, proving every step that he
takes, that the four principal documents—that is to say,
the four Gospels—are in “ flagrant contradiction one with
another.” He attacks, and with perfect success, the miracles
of the Scriptures, and upon this subject says : “ Observation,
which has never once been falsified, teaches us that mu acles
never happen, but in times and countries in. which they are
believed and before persons disposed to believe them. JNo
miracle ever occurred in the presence of men capable ot
testing its miraculous character.” He further takes the
ground that no contemporary miracle will bear inquiry, and
that consequently it is probable that the miracles of antiquity
which have been performed in popular gatherings would be
shown to be simple illusion, were it possible to criticise them
in detail. In the name of universal experience.he banishes
Tnira.nl AS from history. These were brave things to do,
things that will bear good fruit. As long as men believe in
�( 12 )
Piracies, past or present, they remain the prey of supersti101!’ , 6 Catholic is taught that miracles were performed
anciently not only, but that they are still being performed.
Ihis is consistent inconsistency. Protestants teach a double
doctrine: That miracles used to be performed, that the laws
of nature used to be violated, but that no miracle is per01 med now. No Protestant will admit that any miracle was
performed by the Catholic Church. Otherwise, Protestants
could not be justified in leaving a Church with whom the
y°d of miracles dwelt. So every Protestant has to adopt
two kinds of reasoning : that the laws of Nature used to be
violated and that miracles used to be performed, but that
since the apostolic age Nature has had her way and the Lord
has allowed facts to exist and to hold the field. A super
natural account, according to Renan, “always implies
credulity or imposture ’’—probably both.
It does not seem possible to me that Christ claimed for
himself what the Testament claims for him. These claims
were made by admirers, by followers, by missionaries.
When the early Christians went to Rome they found plenty
demigods. It was hard to set aside the religion of a demi
god by telling the story of a man from Nazareth. These
missionaries, not to be outdone in ancestry, insisted—and
this was after the Gospel “ according to St. John ” had been
written that Christ was the Son of God. Matthew believed
that he was the son of David, and the Messiah, and gave the
genealogy of Joseph, his father, to support that claim.
In the time of Christ no one imagined that he was of divine
oiigm, This was an after-growth. In order to place them
eelves on an equality with Pagans they started the claim of
divinity, and also took the second step requisite in that
country: First, a god for his father, and second, a virgin for
his mother. This was the Pagan combination of greatness,
and the Christians added to this that Christ was God.
It was hard to agree with the conclusion reached by Renan,
that Christ formed and intended to form a church. Such
evidence, it seems to me, is hard to find in the Testament.
Christ seemed to satisfy himself, according to the Testament,
with a few statements, some of them exceedingly wise and
tender, some utterly impracticable and some intolerant.
If we accept the conclusions reached by Renan we will
throw away the legends without foundation ; the miraculous
legends; and everything inconsistent with what we know of
Nature. Very little will be left—a few sayings to be found
-among those attributed to Confucius, to Buddha, to Krishna,
to Epictetus, to Zeno, and to many others. Some of these
sayings are full of wisdom, full of kindness, and others rush
to such extremes that they touch the borders of insanity.
�( 13 )
When struck on one cheek to turn the other, is really joining
a conspiracy to secure the triumph of brutality. To. agree
not to resist evil is to become an accomplice of all injustice.
We must not take from industry, from patriotism, from virtue
the right of self-defence.
Undoubtedly Renan gave an honest transcript of his mind,
the road his thought had followed., the reasons in their order
that had occurred to him, the criticisms born of thought, and
the qualifications, softening phrases, children of old senti
ments and of emotions that had not entirely passed away.
He started, one might say, from the altar and, during a con
siderable part of the journey, carried the incense with him.
The farther he got away, the greater was his clearness of
vision and the more thoroughly he was convinced that Christ
was merely a man, an idealist. But remembering the altar,,
he excused exaggeration in the “ inspired ” books, not because
it was from heaven, not because it was in harmony with our
ideas of veracity, but because the writers of the Gospel were
imbued with the Oriental spirit of exaggeration, a spirit per
fectly understood by the people who first read the Gospels,
because the readers knew the habits of the writers.
It had been contended for many years that no one could
pass judgment on the veracity of the Scriptures who did not
understand Hebrew. This position was perfectly absurd. Ho
man needs to be a student of Hebrew to know that the shadow
on the dial did not go back several degrees to convince a petty
king that a boil was not to be fatal. Renan, however, filled-,
the requirement. He was an excellent Hebrew scholar. This
was a fortunate circumstance, because it answered a very old
objection.
The founder of Christianity was, for his own sake, taken
from the divine pedestal and allowed to stand like other men
on the earth, to be judged by what he. said and did, by his
theories, by his philosophy, by his spirit.
No matter whether Renan came to a correct conclusion or
not, his work did a vast deal of good. He convinced many
that implicit reliance could not be placed upon the Gospels,,
that the Gospels themselves are of unequal worth; that they
were deformed by ignorance and falsehood, or, at least, by
mistake; that if they wished to save the reputation of Christ
they must not rely wholly on the Gospels, or on what is found
in the New Testament, but they must go farther and examine
all legends touching him. Not only so, but they must throw
away the miraculous, the impossible and the absurd.
He also has shown that the early followers of Christ en
deavored to add to the reputation of their Master by attri
buting to him the miraculous and the foolish; that while these
stories added to his reputation at that time, since the world.
�( 14 )
has advanced they must be cast aside or the reputation of
the Master must suffer.
It will not do now to say that Christ himself pretended to
do miracles. This would establish the fact at least that he
was mistaken. But we are compelled to say that his disciples
insisted that he was a worker of miracles. This shows, either
that they were mistaken or untruthful.
We all know that a sleight-of-hand performer could gain a
greater reputation among savages than Darwin or Humboldt;
and we know that the world in the time of Christ was filled
with barbarians, with people who demanded the miraculous,
who expected it; with people, in fact, who had a stronger
belief in the supernatural than in the natural; people who
never thought it worth while to record facts. The hero of
such people, the Christ of such people, with his miracles,
cannot be the Christ of the thoughtful and scientific.
Renan was a man of most excellent temper; candid; not
■striving for victory, but for truth; conquering, as far as he
could, the old superstitions; not entirely free, it may be, but
believing himself to be so. He did great good. He has
helped to destroy the fictions of faith. He has helped to
rescue man from the prison of superstition, and this is the
greatest benefit that man can bestow on man.
He did another great service, not only to Jews, but to
“Christendom, by writing the history of The People of Israel.
Christians for many centuries have persecuted the Jews.
They have charged them with the greatest conceivable crime
—with having crucified an infinite God. This absurdity has
hardened the hearts of men and poisoned the minds of
children. The persecution of the Jews is the meanest, the
most senseless and cruel page in history. Every civilised
Christian should feel on his cheeks the red spots of shame as
he reads the wretched and infamous story. The flame of this
prejudice is fanned and fed in the Sunday-schools of our day,
and the orthodox minister points proudly to the atrocities
perpetrated against the Jews by the barbarians of Russia as
■evidences of the truth of the inspired Scriptures. In every
wound God puts a tongue to proclaim the truth of his book.
If the charge that the Jews killed God were true, it is
hardly reasonable to hold those who are now living respon
sible for what their ancestors did nearly nineteen cen
turies ago.
But there is another point in connection with this matter.
If Christ was God, then the Jews could not have killed him
without his consent; and, according to the orthodox creed,
if he had not been sacrificed, the whole world would have
suffered eternal pain. Nothing can exceed the meanness of
the prejudice of Christians against the Jewish people. They
�( 15 )
should not be held responsible for their savage ancestors, or
for their belief that Jehovah was an intelligent and merciful
God, superior to all other gods. Even Christians do not
wish to be held responsible for the Inquisition, for the
Torquemadas and the John Calvins, for the witch-burners
and the Quaker-whippers, for the slave-traders and child
stealers, the most of whom were believers in our “ glorious
gospel,” and many of whom had been born the second time.
Renan did much to civilise the Christians by telling the
truth in a charming and convincing way about the “ People
of Israel.” Both sides are greatly indebted to him : one he
has ably defended, and the other greatly enlightened.
Having done what good he could in giving what he believed
was light to his fellow men, he had no fear of becoming a
victim of God’s wrath, and so he laughingly said : “ For my
part I imagine if the Eternal in his severity were to send me
to hell I should succeed in escaping from it. I would send
up to my Creator a supplication that would make him smile.
The course of reasoning by which I would prove to him that
it was through his fault that I was damned would be so
subtle that he would find some difficulty in replying. The
fate which would suit me best is Purgatory—a charming
place, where many delightful romances begun on earth must
be continued.”
Such cheerfulness, such good philosophy, with cap and
bells, such banter and blasphemy, such sound and solid sense
drive to madness the priest who thinks the curse of Rome
can fright the world. How the snake of superstition writhes
when he finds that his fangs have lost their poison.
He was one of the gentlest of men—one of the fairest in
discussion, dissenting from the views of others with modesty
presenting his own wiuh clearness and candor. His mental
manners were excellent. He was not positive as to the
“ unknowable.” He said “ Perhaps.” He knew that know
ledge is good if it increases the happiness of man; and he
felt that superstition is the assassin of liberty and civilisation.
He lived a life of cheerfulness, of industry, devoted to the
welfare of mankind. He was a seeker of happiness by the
highway of the natural, a destroyer of the dogmas of mental
deformity, a worshipper of Liberty and the Ideal. As he
lived, he died—hopeful and serene—and now, standing in
imagination by his grave, we ask: Will the night be eternal?
The brain says, PerhapB; while the heart; hopes for the
Dawn.
�WORKS BY COL. R. G. INGERSOLL.
MISTAKES OF MOSES
...
...
...
Superior edition, in cloth. ...
...
...
DEFENCE OF FREETIIOUGHT
...
...
Five Hours’ Speech at theTrial of C. B.
Reynolds for Blasphemy.
REPLY TO GLADSTONE. With a Biography by
J. M. Wheeler ...
..!
' ...
...
ROME OR REASON ? Reply to Cardinal Manning
CRIMES AGAINST CRIMINALS
...
...
AN ORATION ON WALT WHITMAN...
...
ORATION ON VOLTAIRE ...
...
...
THE THREE PHILANTHROPISTS
...
...
TRUE RELIGION ...
...
...
...
FAITH AND FACT. Reply to Rev. Dr. Field
...
GOD AND MAN. Second Reply to Dr. Field
...
THE HOUSEHOLD OF FAITH
...
...
LOVE THE REDEEMER. Reply to Count Tolstoi
THE LIMITS OF TOLERATION
...
...
A Discussion with Hon.* F. D. Coudert and
Gov. S. L. Woodford
THE DYING CREED
...
• ...
...
DO I BLASPHEME ?
...
...
...
THE CLERGY AND COMMON SENSE
...
SOCIAL SALVATION
...
...
...
MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE ...
...
...
GOD AND THE STATE
...
...
...
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ?
...
...
WHY AM I AN AGNOSTIC ? Part II.
...
ART AND MORALITY
...................
...
CREEDS AND SPIRITUALITY
...
....
CHRIST AND MIRACLES
...
...
...
THE GREAT MISTAKE
...
...
...
LIVE TOPICS
...
...
...
...
MYTH AND MIRACLE
...
...
...
REAL BLASPHEMY
...
...
...
REPAIRING THE IDOLS
...
...
...
s. d.
1 0
1 6
0 6
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2’
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Read THE FREETHINKER, edited by G.W. Foote.
Sixteen Pages.
Price One Penny.
Published every Thursday.
R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, London, 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
Ernest Renan and Jesus Christ
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Ingersoll, Robert Green [1833-1899]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: "Works by Col. R.G. Ingersoll" listed on back cover. No. 19a in Stein checklist. Printed by G.W. Foote. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1892
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N343
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 (Ernest Renan and Jesus Christ), 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
Ernest Renan
Jesus Christ
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/778bda20e4d7bef5735f3568f13e33f3.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=okFwlCRiQP%7EbhL%7E-A3E08NuCod7lil0ERyjHGr-mUCNMFaaeYAmyBcXRGvZWArWW1Zjk9npxt1vVNFeGbrkgOinQ-rMlbNRL6I6W9GnUZG%7EigWZRXh3xp7qJSQcfx45wsGV0MUba1G%7ETZC2ntyFA41qt1IWAuxt%7EpxHBs0HFrcpHHTMr4lu%7EfLYeFk3KY8knR9LbCgXG6s5HNBCalOCcUgaBUNevUlHAUOO0U3FTBBurUnCvrNUpnD5RN06cnTrVWWiD3ABY9QvuwqSGWZAceZYKFvtHTkXSAJrTcjttkhY0OsEJTOtDrPEVA9TPVrrJWUCJSzBLFAOfhhXY%7EIgLrg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8e6431acd6f15c48799518af5b662f46
PDF Text
Text
national secular society
WHO WAS
THE
FATHER OF JESUS?
G. W. FOOTE
LONDON :
R. FORDER, 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
1895
Price Twopence
�LONDON :
PRINTED BY G. W. FOOTE,
AT 28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS?
tS? T
JeSUS ■” asked a teacher in a
London Board school, and a boy replied “Joseph” The
lad s answer was heard by a friend of the Rev. J. Coxhead
C.ne of the clerical members of the Board, and was conveyed
Jo the reverend gentleman, who lost no time in bringing it
it° Jwf V^011 °i H1S colleagues- Mr- Coxhead considered
it awful that such an answer should be given to such a
question. Joseph the father of Jesus! Angels and
ministers of grace defend us! It was flat bllphemy
The doctrine of the Incarnation was in deadly peril If
children were to be taught in this fashion.
7 P
Mr. Coxhead imparted his alarm to the majority of his
colleagues who carried a resolution that “Christian”
should qualify the “religion” taught in the Board school
and issued a circular , to the teachers enjoining them to
nstruct the children in the doctrine of the Trinity with
Special emphasis on the deity of Jesus Christ.
7’
. 1 • i teacker,s revolted against this circular, Noncon
formists sent deputations to the Board to protest agX'
the priestly machinations of the Church party, and a fierce
controversy was waged in the newspapers. The agitation
lasted for eighteen months, and culminated in an flection
which was contested with as much zeal as though the fate
of the empire were trembling in the balance. Every staa^
of the struggle was marked by acrimonious charges and
passionate recrimination. London wa«
n g6S
“J tHhXpXnaXeA ”senuousIy
month J great.events from little causes spring. Eighteen
months agitation, an unparalleled School Board Xk
and, in fact, the convulsion of London, all flowed from^’
Jesfsi’°y 7eH 7 tOhthe TSti°n’ “ Who was the father^ of
J esus ? And perhaps there will be other long andXr™
battles over the same transcendent problem. &
fier e
�4
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
Despite all the wrangling and hubbub, that schoolboy’s
answer seems to us a very sensible one. It showed, at any
rate, that the obscenities of the orthodox faith had fallen
harmlessly upon his young intelligence. Probably he was
not old enough to understand them. All the boys he knew
had fathers, though perhaps some were missing. It seemed
to him perfectly natural that Jesus also had a father, and
he had read in the New Testament that this father was
Joseph. How could he understand the “virgin mother,
the “ Holy Ghost,” the “overshadowing,” the “immaculate
conception,” and the “Incarnation”? All this had been
written by some ancient gentlemen m Greek, and certainly
it was Greek to him.
Since this question, however, is of such importance that
a wrong, or even a questionable, answer is enough to
convulse the greatest city in the world, let us give it a
full consideration.
Presumption is always in favor of the natural. It is
rational to believe that any baby has two parents This is
taken for granted when a woman seeks an order for main
tenance against the father of her illegitimate child The
magistrate never supposes a possible alternative. It never
occurs to him that the child may be the offspring of a
supernatural being. There is a father somewhere, and the
father is a man.
.
.
T,
Every natural presumption is universal. it applies
without exception. The onus of proof lies upon those who
assert the contrary. If a man has been buried, the pre
sumption is that he will lie quietly. Those who say that
he still walks about must prove the allegation^ . The certi
ficates of the doctor and the cemetery are sufficient on the
other side. Similarly, when a baby is produced inlong
clothes, the presumption is that it came into the world in
the ordinary manner. A mother on earth and a father m
heaven is unnatural. Every child of woman born has a
father on this planet, and if . he cannot be found it is not
the fault of biology. It is simply a case for the police.
It is presumable, therefore, that Jesus Christ (if he ever
lived) came into existence like every other little Jew of his
generation. Those who say that his mother was a woman,
but his father was not a man, must prove the statement.
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
5
They should also explain why a mother was necessary if a
father was dispensable. A half miracle is doubly suspicious.
It is as easy to be born without one parent as without two.
Why then did Jesus Christ avail himself of the assistance
of Mary ? Why did he not drop down ready-born from
heaven ? He is said to have returned there as a man, after
burial. Could he not also have come from there as a baby,
without birth ? Why was the plain natural mixed with
the uncertain supernatural, to the subsequent confusion of
every honest and candid intelligence ?
Until we have evidence to the contrary, we are justified
in saying that the father of Jesus was a man, and probably
a Jew. Celsus, in the second century, twitted the Chris
tians with worshipping the bastard child of a Jewish
maiden and a Roman soldier ; and the same idea is found
in the Sepher Toldoth Jeshu—the Jewish Life of Christ.
But we shall not believe this aspersion on Mary without
cogent evidence. Still, there is nothing in it of a super
natural character. It may be libellous, but it is not
miraculous. Whether a soldier or a carpenter, the father
of Jesus was a man.
There is plenty of proof of this in the New Testament,
and proof that the man was Joseph. And this proof is all
the more striking and convincing because it has clearly
been left in the “ sacred books ” to the detriment of the
Church doctrines.
Several passages show that the countrymen of Jesus, his
neighbors, and even his brothers, believed him to be the .
son. of Joseph. In “his own country”—that is, in
Galilee—the people were offended at his pretensions, and 11
exclaimed: “Is not this the carpenter’s son ? is not his '
mother called Mary ? and his brethren, James, and Joses,
and Simon, and Judas ? And his sisters, are they not all
with us ?” (Matthew xiii. 55, 56). Luke (iv. 22) represents i
them as saying: “Is not this Joseph’s son ?” John (vi. 42) . j
gives their words : “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph ?” 11
Other passages might be cited, but these will suffice. They
show that the people of his own countryside, the people
in and about Nazareth, regarded him as the son of Joseph.
Philip, the fourth apostle, after being called to follow
Jesus, meets Nathaniel, and says he has found the one
written of by Moses and the prophets—“ Jesus of Naza-
�6
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS
1
s reth, the son of Joseph” (John i. 45). Not one of the
f apostles, in person, ever utters a doubt upon this point.
. The brothers of Jesus (John vii. 5) did not believe in him,,
and on one occasion (Mark iii. 21, 31) they tried to put
him under restraint as a lunatic; which is~ quite irreconcileable with any knowledge on their part of his super
natural character. Mary herself (Luke ii. 48) speaks to
i Jesus of Joseph as “thy father.”
r~AH these passages, witE~ othbrs which we omit, are very
awkward for the orthodox. They prove conclusively—
that is, if the Gospels are to be regarded as at all historical
—that the neighbors of Jesus, his brothers, and even his
mother, treated him as the son of Joseph. Nobody at that
time appears to have known anything about the Holy
Ghost.
It is a curious fact that in the newly-discovered Syriac
Gospels, which the Rev. J. Rendel Harris regards as
certainly “ superior in antiquity to anything yet known,”
it is distinctly stated that “ Joseph begat Jesus, who is
called Christ.” The farther we go back the more is the
natural birth of Jesus a matter of common acceptation.
Our third Gospel, which is generally supposed to be the
oldest, opens with the public ministry of Jesus. There
is not a word in it about his childhood, nothing about his
having been born of a virgin mother. Paul’s “ authentic ”
1 epistles, which are older still, are just as silent about the
supernatural birth of Christ. Neither is there a word
- about it in the fourth Gospel, which the orthodox say
was written by John, the most beloved and intimate
of all the twelve apostles. Positive and negative evi
dence abounds that Jesus was the son of Joseph, as
well as of Mary, and born precisely like other children.
The story of his supernatural birth, with all its far-reaching
doctrinal issues, depends upon the authority of Matthew
and Luke; and what that is worth we will proceed to
investigate.
Let us first take Luke. There are many traditions about
him which we are at liberty to disbelieve. He is said to
have been a physician and also a painter; indeed, the
Catholic Church, with its usual effrontery, exhibited
pictures of the Virgin Mary pretendedly drawn by him, or
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
7
at least as copies of his original paintings. According to
OHB tradition, he suffered martyrdom ; according to another
tradition, he died a natural death at the age of eighty-four.
His death occurred at several different places. His tomb
was shown at Thebes in Boeotia, but travellers have found
it a comparatively modern structure. The number of
countries in which he is said to have preached the Gospel
i® a tribute to his prodigious and even preternatural
activity. He is alleged to have been converted by Paul, of
whom he became the constant companion j a view which is
reflected in the Acts of the Apostles. It has even been
maintained that he wrote the third Gospel at Paul’s
dictation. According to Irenaeus, he digested into writing
what Paul preached to the Gentiles. Gregory Nazianzen
says that he wrote with the help of the great Apostle. All
this, of course, is very precarious; but it is sufficient to
show that Luke was not a personal follower of Jesus. He
wrote down as much as he remembered of what Paul
remembered of what other people had told him. His
exordium puts him outside the category of eye-witnesses.
He relates, not what he knew, but what was “ most surely
believed,” on the testimony of those who handed down the
information, and who “ from the beginning were eye
witnesses, and ministers of the word.” It is perfectly
certain, therefore, that Luke could have had no first-hand
knowledge of the supernatural birth of Christ. He merely
recorded what was then the tradition of the Church, which
is not adequate evidence to support a miracle, especially
one so astounding that a famous old English divine, Dr.
John Donne, declared that if God had not said it he would
never have believed it.
The historical authority of the third Gospel is in a still
worse plight if we accept the conclusion of the majority of
modern critics, that it was not written by Luke, nor by
any person living in the apostolic age, but is a production
of the second century, and of unknown authorship. Who
can credit a. staggering miracle on the authority of a
document written God alone knows exactly when, where,
and by whom ?
Let us now turn to Matthew. What the Gospels tell us
about him is trifling. He was a Jew and a publican—that
iSj a tax-collector. On one occasion he entertained Jesus
�8
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
at dinner (Matthew ix. 10). And here endeth the story.
All the rest that is told of Matthew is tradition. He was
a vegetarian, he preached the Gospel extensively, he died
a natural death, and he also suffered martyrdom. Even
his martyrdom was ambiguous, for he was burnt alive and
also beheaded. The earliest writers, such as Papias and
Irenaeus, say that he wrote the logia, or sayings, of Christ
in Hebrew. But our first Gospel is a complete history,
from the birth of Jesus to his ascension; it is also written
in Greek, and by some one who was not conversant with
the Hebrew language. Whatever may have been written
by Matthew is universally allowed to have perished. But
the orthodox have pretended that, before it was lost, it
was translated into Greek, and thence again into Latin.
I They are unable to say, however, who made the translation,
or even when it was made; nor can they tell us why the
translation was preserved, and the inspired original allowed
A to perish.
Matthew may have written something, but it is for ever
lost to the world; nor is there the slightest evidence that
our Greek Gospel is a translation from it, but much
evidence to the contrary. In the judgment of all competent
critics, our first Gospel, like all the others, is not of apostolic
origin. It cannot be traced back beyond the second half
of the second century.
So much for the authorship and authority of Matthew
and Luke. Now let us take them as they stand, and
examine what they say.
Each of them gives a genealogy of Jesus, right up to
Adam—a gentleman who never existed. There is a con
siderable difference, however, in the two genealogies ;
which proves that they were not derived from a well-kept
family pedigree. They are doubtless as imaginary as the
pedigrees made out at the Herald’s Office for modern
gentlemen who are knighted or ennobled.
As the Messiah was to be of the blood of David, and
k Joseph belonged to that “ house/’ both Matthew and Luke
i trace the family descent through him. But if Jesus was
not the son of Joseph, he was not really of the house of
David, any more than Moses was of the house of Pharaoh.
* It is extremely probable, as Strauss argues, that the
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
9
genealogies of Jesus were compiled before our Gospels were
written, at a time when the supernatural birth of Jesus
Was not entertained. He was then believed to be the
lawful son of Joseph and Mary, and the genealogies were
compiled to show his descent from David, which was
requisite to his Messiahship.
Luke speaks of Jesus, in his genealogy, as “being (as
was supposed) the son of Joseph.” This is a very eloquent
parenthesis. As_was supposed ! By whom ? Why, by
the very persons who ought to know; by the countrymen,
neighbors, and brothers of Jesus. They supposed him to
be the son of Joseph, but they forsooth were mistaken,
and their blunder was corrected long afterwards by a
gentleman who was not even a Jew, and never lived in
Palestine.
Having to represent Jesus as not the son of Joseph, but
a child of supernatural birth, both Matthew and Luke
give us circumstantial narratives of his entrance into the
world. On some points they agree, on others they differ,
and each relates many things which the other omits.
Evidently they were working upon various sets of traditions.
And just as evidently the whole of these birth-traditions
were unknown to Mark and John, or considered by them
as false or doubtful, and not worth recording.
Matthew starts with his genealogy, which Luke reserves
till the end, and then plunges into the middle of his
subject.
“Now the birth of Jesus was in this wise : When as
his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they
came, together, she was found with child of the Holy
Ghost.”
Wait a minute, Matthew ! Not so fast! You, or any
other man, can tell that a young woman is with child, but
by whom is quite another matter. Let us see what you
know on this subject. And for the sake of argument we
will suppose you one of the twelve Apostles. As for Luke,
he is out of court altogether; it being impossible for him
to give more than hearsay, which no court of law would
®dmit as evidence.
From the very nature of the case, Matthew could not
have had any personal knowledge of who was the father of
Jesus. Whether it was a man, or a ghost, or any other
�10
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS
1
being, Matthew was not in a position to know more than
he was told. Well then, who told him ? Unluckily he
does not inform us. We have therefore nothing to rely
upon but his own authority, which (we repeat) from the
very nature of the case is absolutely worthless.
No one has a right to say that Joseph told Matthew.
Even if he did, he could only say that he was not the father
of Jesus. He could not say who was. At least he could
not say so with any certainty. Nor was it a matter on
which he was likely to be loquacious.
It may be argued that Matthew derived his information
from Jesus. But there is no evidence of this in the Gospels.
Jesus never called attention to any miraculous circum
stances in connection with his birth. Even if a private
conversation be alleged, as at least possible, what is its
value ? Jesus himself was no authority on the. subject. It
is a wise child that knows its own father. How could
Jesus be aware, except by report, of what occurred nine
months before he was born ? It may be objected that he
was God, and, therefore, omniscient; but this is begging
the very question in dispute. We must begin the
argument with his manhood, and go on to his godhead
afterwards, if the evidence justifies the proceeding. It
will never do to bring in the conclusion to prove the
premises.
The only person who knew for certain was Mary. Did
she tell Matthew ? It is not alleged that she did. Accord
ing to Luke, Mary “ kept all these things.” She does not
appear to have told even Joseph. Is it probable then
that she told a third person ?
Matthew states that Joseph, finding Mary as ladies wish
to be who love their lords, before he had married her, and
certainly without his assistance, was “ minded to put her
away privily.” He did not like the look of affairs, and he
“thought on these things.” No doubt! We are not dis
posed to quarrel with this part of the narrative.
f Joseph’s brain could not stand much thinking. He was
better at dreaming. It was in a dream that he was
ordered to take his flight into Egypt, in a dream that he
\was told to return to Palestine, and in a dream that he was
warned to avoid Judsea and go into Galilee.
v How natural, then, that “ the angel of the Lord appeared
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
11
unto Jim in a dream,'’ telling him to marry Mary, and
Worming him that the approaching little stranger was the
progeny “ of the Holy Ghost.”
We had better reproduce the exact words of this angelic
intimation :—
“Behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in Li
a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to 11 \
take unto thee Mary thy wife : for that which is con- II f .
ceived of her is of the Holy Ghost” (i. 20).
3ia®t reflect on the absurdity of this message. Had I
anyone, whether man or angel, told it to Joseph, he would «
naturally have exclaimed : “ Who the devil is the Holy ll
Ghost?” Joseph had never heard of such a personage. ij
The Holy Ghost was not then invented. Even in the '
Acts of the Apostles (xix. 2) we read that Paul found 1/1
“ certain disciples” at Ephesus who had “not so much as >
heard whether there be a Holy Ghost ’’—and, on the t
orthodox chronology, this was fifty or sixty years after
th® dream of Joseph.
Is it not perfectly clear that this story of the super
natural birth of Christ was made up long afterwards, and
entirely amongst the Christians, who had accepted the
Holy Ghost as one of the persons of their Trinity ? The
very language put into the mouth of the angel betrays
the concoction. Joseph was simply a Jew; the time in
question was before the birth of Christ; and to talk to a
Jew of that period about the Holy Ghost would have been
mere nonsense—utterly unintelligible.
However, we are told that Joseph was perfectly satis
fied, though he could hardly have been enlightened. He
married Mary, and fathered her prospective baby ; but for
some time he was only her nominal husband. “ He knew
h® not, says Matthew, “until she had brought forth her
firstborn son.”
We dare not, in this pamphlet at least, dwell upon the
extraordinary indecencies in which Christian fathers and
divines have indulged with regard to the occult part of this
affair. There is no reason why their pious obscenities
should not be exposed, but we shrink from doing it in a
pamphlet which is intended for readers of both sexes, of all
ages, and of every degree of education.
�12
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
What must be said here is, that the birth of a savior
from a woman and a god is far from being a speciality of
the Christian religion. It was common in the religions
of antiquity. Even historical characters were sometimes
assigned a semi-divine origin. Alexander boasted his
descent from the god Ammon; Gautama, the founder of
Buddhism, was born exactly like Jesus Christ; and even in
the most cultivated age of the most cultivated city in the
world, the disciples of Plato declared that Ariston was
only his putative father, his recd father being the god
Apollo. This legend prevailed in Athens while Plato’s
nephew was still living. And the most curious coincidence
is that, in words very similar to those of Matthew, Diogenes
Laertius, in his Lives of the Philosophers, relates that Ariston,
being warned in a dream by Apollo, deferred his marriage,
and did not approach his intended wife until after her
iconfinement. Indeed, the Greek word translated “till” in
4 Matthew i. 25 is the very same word used by Diogenes
Laertius in relating the legendary birth of Plato.
Orthodoxy has pretended that Mary remained a virgin
all her life, in spite of the birth of Jesus; that Joseph was
always her nominal husband; and that Jesus had neither
brother nor sister. They have made “ first born ” mean
“ only born,” and “ till” to cover, not only the period of
her miraculous pregnancy, but all the time afterwards.
Language, like common sense, has been mercilessly twisted
in the interest of dogma.
It is perfectly clear from the New Testament that Jesus
had natural brothers and sisters. We have already quoted
the passage in Matthew (xiii. 55, 56) in which four of his
brothers are mentioned, with a reference to “ his sisters.”
Paul himself (Galatians i. 19) states that when he went up
to Jerusalem he saw Peter and “James the Lord’s brother.”
Paul never learnt on the spot, and at the time, what the
Church discovered at a distance, and long afterwards;
namely, that brother James, like all the others, was a
cousin of Jesus. It is astonishing what a lot has been
I, found out about “ the Savior ” by Christian divines, which
Iwas utterly unknown to the “ inspired ” writers of the New
^Testament.
Accepting the dogma of the miraculous birth of Jesus,
without a tittle of evidence from any valid witness, the
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
13
“ fathers ” of the Christian Church carried it to its highest
degree of intensity. Mary was represented as a virgin
from birth to death ; Joseph was represented as an old
man, who was merely her guardian ; finally, he also was
represented as a life-long virgin. Epiphanius allowed that
Joseph had sons by a former marriage ; but this was too
much for the fastidious faith of Jerome, who stigmatised
the supposition as impious and audacious; and from that
time it became a point of orthodoxy to regard the
“brothers” of Jesus as his “cousins.”
It is not claimed, however, that these “fathers” were
inspired, nor is the claim advanced on behalf of their
successors in the subtle art of divinity. We are therefore h ,
free to take our notions from the New Testament, and the |
following conclusions may be deduced from it beyond a .
reasonable doubt: (1) That Jesus was the son of Mary,
(2) that Joseph was her husband, (3) that Mary and ■
everyone else spoke of Joseph as the father of Jesus, :
(4) that Jesus had four brothers and an unknown number I
of sisters, who were all reckoned as the natural offspring of | p
his own father and mother.
We are thus forced back upon the argument we have
already elaborated. All the natural, historical, and
undesigned evidence is in favor of Joseph having been
the father of Jesus. In support of the contrary position
we have certain statements in the first and third Gospels,
which are discredited by the complete silence of the second
and fourth Gospels, as well as by the complete silence of
Paul; and still further discredited by the fact that these
statements—in themselves so marvellous and so loosely
woven—are made by two really anonymous writers,
neither of whom was in a position to know anything
whatever about the subject, who could only relate what
they had heard at second-hand, and who do not even hint
that they derived any information from the only person—
namely, Mary—who was in possession of the facts.
This difficulty, which has never to our knowledge been
adequately emphasised, is at least perceived by Canon
Gore. This writer admits that the miraculous birth of
Jesus “does not rest primarily on apostolic testimony,”
and that it was “ not part of the primary apostolic
preaching.” The apostles “ had no knowledge given them
�14
WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
to start with of his miraculous origin,” but when they
came to believe it [whenever that was !] they “ must have
been interested to know the circumstances of the Incarna
tion.”*
Canon Gore thus supports our contention that the
twelve apostles who were constantly with Jesus for the
space of three years, and who must surely have seen the
members of his family, never heard a word, during the
whole of that time, which led them to doubt that he was
the natural son of Joseph.
Our further contention is also supported by this eminent
preacher. “ There were two sources,” he says, “ of original
evidence, Joseph and Mary.” Just as we do, therefore, he
narrows the inquiry down to the question whether’we
have their testimony in the opening chapters of St.
Matthew and St. Luke. ’ And let the reader observe that
no notice whatever is taken of the absolute silence of Mark
whom we cannot imagine to have been less
“interested to know the circumstances of the Incarnation ”
than the other evangelists.
“ Read St. Matthew’s account of the birth,” says Canon
Gore, “ and you will see how unmistakably everything is
told from the side of Joseph, his perplexities, the intima
tions which he received, his resolutions and his actions.”
“Unmistakably”, is a big bold word, but it only
expresses the certitude of the writer’s own judgment.
The author of the first Gospel does not allege, or even
hint, that he received any information from Joseph ; and
if what he relates “ has all the marks of being Joseph’s
story at the bottom,” we are still in the dark as to its
authenticity, for Canon Gore admits that “ we cannot tell
by what steps it comes to us ”—which is the most
important point in the whole investigation.
Luke s narrative is said to have “ all the appearance of
containing directly or indirectly Mary’s story.” But
“ appearance ” is a very vague word in an argument, and
in this case it means no more than the personal impression
of an individual reader. There are no links between Mary
and the writer of the third Gospel. He relates what was
* Canon Gore, The Incarnation of the Son of God (Bamnton
Lectures for the year 1891), pp. 77, 78.
I
<
�WHO WAS THE FATHER OF JESUS ?
15
“believed ” at the time he wrote, and is dependent on what
was “ delivered ” down by the original “ eye-witnesses and
ministers of the word.” Such a confession deprives him
of all independent authority. What he relates may be
true, but its truth depends on the accuracy and veracity
of his informants. Who these persons were is left in
obscurity; and certainly it is an unwarrantable strain upon
the language of his exordium to include Mary amongst
them.
Canon Gore does not seem satisfied with his own argu
ment, for he goes on to say that it is “a perversion of
evidential order to begin with the miracle of the virginbirth.” We must first learn to accept the “apostolic
testimony ” and gain confidence in the “evangelical narra
tive,” and then we shall have little difficulty in believing
the mystery of the Incarnation. We must begin, that is,
with minor wonders, and advance to major wonders in our
successful practice of credulity; which is another way of
stating the aphorism of Cardinal Newman, that evidence is
not the proof but the reward of faith.
We have now concluded our inquiry as to “ Who was
the father of Jesus ?” And the result is that the schoolboy’s
answer of “Joseph,” with which we started, is justified by
the most rigorous criticism. Once more the truth, which
is hidden from the “ wise,” is revealed unto “ babes and
sucklings,” and what is imperceptible to the spoilt eyes of
a theological pedant is as clear as daylight to the
unperverted vision of a little child.
�WORKS BY G. W. FOOTE
Flowers of Freethought. First Series, 221 pp., bound in cloth,
2s. 6d.
Second, Series, 302 pp., bound in cloth, 2s. 6d.
Bible Heroes. Cloth, 2s. 6d.
Letters to the Clergy. First Series, 128 pp., Is.
The Grand Old Book. A Reply to the Grand Old Man. An
exhaustive answer to the Right Hon. W. E. Gladstone’s “Im
pregnable Rock of Holy Scripture.” Is.; bound in cloth, Is. 6d.
Christianity and Secularism. Four Nights’ Public Debate
with the Rev. Dr. James McGann. Is.; superior edition, in
cloth, Is. 6d.
(. { -.
Infidel Death-Beds. Second edition, much enlarged, 8d. On-:' *■
superfine paper, in cloth, Is. 3d.
Darwin on God. 6d.; superior edition, in cloth, Is.
Comic Sermons and Other Fantasias. 8d.
Will Christ Save Us ? A Thorough Examination of the Claims
of Jesus Christ to be considered the Savior of the World. 6d.
Reminiscences of Charles Bradlaugh. 6d.
A, Defence of Free Speech. Three Hours’ Address to the Jury
before Lord Coleridge. With a Special Preface and many Foot
notes. 4d.
Rome or Atheism—the Great Alternative. 3d.
Letters to Jesus Christ. 4d.
Interview with the Devil. 2d.
Philosophy of Secularism. 3d.
Atheism and Morality. 2d.
Bible and Beer. 4d.
Bible Handbook for Freethinkers and Inquiring Christians.
[Edited in conjunction with W. P. Ball.] Complete, paper
covers, Is. 4d. ; superior edition, on superfine paper, bound in
cloth, 2s.
Crimes of Christianity. Vol. I. [Written in conjunction with
J. M. Wheeler.] Hundreds of exact references to Standard,]!»
Authorities. No pains spared to make it a complete, trust
worthy, final, unanswerable Indictment of Christianity. Cloth,
gilt, 216 pp., 2s. 6d.
READ
THE
FREETHINKER
Edited
by
G. W. FOOTE.
Published every Thursday. Price Twopence.
London: R. Forder, 28 Stonecutter-street, E.C. .
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Who was the father of Jesus?
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Foote, G. W. (George William) [1850-1915]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 15 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Signature on front cover: B.G. Ralph-Brown M.P. (or J.P.?) Inscription in ink on front cover: 'Enquire within'. Annotations in pencil. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Works by G.W. Foote listed on back cover. Annotations in pencil.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
R. Forder
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1895
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N270
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<p class="western"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" name="graphics1" align="bottom" width="88" height="31" border="0" alt="88x31.png" /></p>
<p class="western">This work (Who was the father of Jesus?), identified by <span style="color:#0000ff;"><span lang="zxx"><u>Humanist Library and Archives</u></span></span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</p>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jesus Christ
NSS
Saint Joseph