1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/944fc26e602d23dde74c4eee741a7598.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=ewxdFygO1ic3zNO-4Dd8-PC8cnPaQ%7EpOZRbjoUfn54kSir00-63iLJj4dtpIVHJiExk8F517AbfoO4eya4h5fR3ffuXag6ukmXM0ER0JI%7E0rJhyBiwcC3sUnreJThCUdk5Y0Oj0ubcYndnVqdM5BxadlZQ7j0PQEPvrP3bErwnQUSMF7SoNodip9ztXLYrTWhauJxbotIOkSdBSY2DM7Y8TxB2cAepTJ6aJzgJcUxC2GUgbEa9wWL6ULSs9Tb0bx5XXdxtKkKQTVQQ6lgx%7El6Xof3HCekrHHSZ%7E-oSSDGecEze3dX35Kz6VSU9Eu04UZfVVZ8yctEYRzMp3MHNLnDA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
417015e612c7ad0ceda46cb8b41eaddb
PDF Text
Text
GUILTY
OR
NOT
GUILTY?
AN OPEN LETTER
TO
The Rev. Dr. R. A. TORREY,
BY
G. W. FOOTE.
“M/ /
PRINTED FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION.
The Pioneer Press, 2 Newcastle Street, London, E.C,
19Q5.
.■iW*’
��GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY?
AN OPEN LETTER
TO
DR. R. A. TORREY.
—♦►—
Sir,—
I write you this open letter as the most
convenient and effective way of addressing you and
others at the same time. The subject it deals with
is a matter of public interest and importance.
You have therefore no reason to complain of in
justice or incivility. I desire to be just to you as
well as to the truth—and to the truth as well as to
you; and if I have occasion to express myself
severely I shall keep well within the limits of
allowable language.
To come to the point then. It is widely known
that a pamphlet of mine, bearing the title of
Dr. Torrey and the Infidels, was distributed outside
the Albert Hall on the opening night of your
Mission there, and continuously afterwards. You
have yourself admitted that this pamphlet was
distributed in tens of thousands. It was also
reprinted in the Clarion, whose editor, Mr. Robert
Blatchford, thought he was performing a public
duty in promoting its circulation. I should add that
it was printed for “ free distribution,” my friends
having subscribed the means for that purpose.
You will thus understand—or at least others will—
that there was a principle involved io its publication
and distribution.
�In that pamphlet I endeavored, and I believe
successfully, to vindicate the characters of Thomas
Paine and Colonel Ingersoll against your slanderous
aspersions. You had represented Paine as having
taken away another man’s wife and lived with her.
I proved that this was an absolute falsehood. You
had represented Ingersoll as having assisted in the
dissemination of obscene literature in America. I
also proved that this was an absolute falsehood.
You entered into conversation with some of those
who gave their evenings to distribute my pamphlet
outside the Albert Hall. This happened on several
occasions. When they asked you why you did not
substantiate or withdraw your charges against Paine
and Ingersoll you gave various replies. You said
that you had something better to do ; you said that
my pamphlet would do you no harm and you did not
care ; you also said that it was anonymous, and that
anonymous attacks were beneath your notice. This
last statement you repeated in letters that came
under my own observation. I therefore thought it
advisable to send you the following letter, which I
registered for security, and with which I enclosed a
copy of my pamphlet for the same reason :—
“ 2 Newcastle-street, Farringdon-street,
London, E.C.,
March 27, 1905.
Dear Sir,—
I understand that you are professing ignorance as
to who is the author of the pamphlet “ Dr. Torrey and
the Infidels,” of which thousands of copies have been
distributed outside the Albert Hall. Indeed, I have seen
letters by you stating that this pamphlet is anonymous.
I have therefore to draw your attention to the fact that
every copy of the pamphlet contains an announcement
at the end that it was written by the editor of the Free
thinker. This is a perfectly sufficient identification of
the author. The editor of the Freethinker is a wellknown person, and his name appears in bold letters
right under the title in every copy of every issue of
that paper. However, in order to destroy that loop
hole of escape, I hereby inform you that I am the
�5
editor of the Freethinker, that I am the author of the
pamphlet “ Dr. Torrey and the Infidels,” and that I am
determined to continue my public exposure of your
infamous libels on Thomas Paine and Colonel Ingersoll
until you have the manliness to retract them as openly
as you made them.
Yours truly,
Dr. R. A. Torrey,
G. W. Foote.”
66 Sinclair-road, W.
This letter elicited from you the following reply,
in which—as I want it to be noted, even now—you
do not challenge any specific allegation in my
pamphlet:—
“ 66 Sinclair-road, London, W.,
March 28, 1905.
Mr. G. W. Foote,
2 Newcastle-street,
Farringdon-street, E.C.
Dear Sir,—
Yours of March 27 received. You say, “ I under
stand that you are professing ignorance as to who is the
author of the pamphlet on ‘ Dr. Torrey and the Infidels.’ ”
In reply would say, I am not professing any ignorance of
the kind. I have referred to the pamphlet as “ anony
mous,” and so it is. After the pamphlet was handed me
I looked at the front to see if the name of the author
was given, and it was not. Then I looked at the end,
and the name was not given there. Thereupon I treated
it with the same silent contempt that I do all anonymous
pamphlets and letters. I had not noticed the little note
at the bottom. I am not in the habit of reading adver
tisements at the end of anonymous pamphlets; but even
since you have called my attention to this advertisement
of your paper, this does not alter the essential fact
at all. The name of the author is not given in this ad, vertisement. I think you are aware that it is not the
usual custom of authors of pamphlets and books to
declare their authorship by advertisements, and then not
to declare it by name. I suppose a great majority of
those to whom the pamphlet was given at the Albert
Hall neither know nor care who the editor of the Free
thinker is. I take it for granted that you know the
meaning of the word “ anonymous,” and the pamphlet
is anonymous.
�6
Now as to the other matter in your letter, permit me
to say that as soon as you or any one else will show me
anything that I have said in any of my books, in any
of my lectures as correctly reported, or in any authentic
letter regarding Mr. Thomas Paine or Col. Ingersoll that
is not strictly true, I shall be more than glad to retract
it. But I am not likely to retract anything that I have
not said, or to retract anything that I have said that is
true. I am not willing to be held responsible for
incorrect reports in papers of what I have said, nor any
mere hearsay reports which are always inaccurate, nor
am I willing to be held responsible for deliberate falsi
fications of my statements.
Sincerely yours,
R. A. Torrey.”
To this letter of yours I returned the following
answer:—
“ 2 Newcastle-street, E.C.,
April 4, 1905.
Dear Sir,—
Yours of March 28, apparently posted later,
reached me safely, and I should have given it an
earlier reply if I had not seen by the newspapers that
several important personages, including the Queen and
yourself, were taking a holiday on the Continent.
You use a great many words to say very little. I
infer rather than perceive from your letter that, in
your opinion, a drama by the author of Hamlet, a
poem by the author of Paradise Lost, or a novel by
the author of David Copperfield, would be anonymous.
Etymologically you may be right, but when such hair
splitting involves a pretence of ignorance, and an evasion
of responsibility, it is more worthy of a prisoner in the
dock than of a public teacher of religion and morality.
However, I will take care that this hole of escape shall
be closed up. Further impressions of my pamphlet
shall state, not only that it is written by the editor of
the Freethinker, but that the name of the editor is
G. W. Foote.
You say that the majority of your auditors who saw
my pamphlet did not know who was the editor of the
Freethinker. Do you really believe this ?
The last part of your letter is the unworthiest of all.
You must know what you have said about Paine and
�7
Ingersoll, and if you were a straightforward person you
would either admit what you did say or deny what you
did not say. Instead of doing this, you stand abso
lutely on the defensive, like a person indicted for a
criminal offence.
You want to know what you have said about Paine or
Ingersoll that is “ not strictly true.” I have told you
in my pamphlet. I shall not waste time in telling you
again. My object now is to place the pamphlet in as
many hands as possible.
When you come to your senses, which will probably
be when your own people are tired of your perpetual
evasions; when you lead the procession to your own
penitent form, and confess your “ sin ” and resolve to
make atonement; I shall rejoice to know that the
revivalist is revived, and that the soul of the soul
saver has found its “ Resurrection.”
Yours truly,
Dr. R. A. Torrey,
G. W. Foote.”
66 Sinclair-road, W.
You know perfectly well, sir, why I did not put
my name on the title-page of the pamphlet. Had I
done so I should have defeated my object. When
you told your friends inside the Albert Hall, with a
meaning smile, that they “ knew what to do ” with
“ those pamphlets,” you only indicated what I had
foreseen. I wished to put the pamphlet into the
hands of your auditors, and I wished it to be read.
For that reason I kept my name off the front. But
I also wished its authorship to be known. For that
reason I had the announcement made at the end
that it was written by the Editor of the Freethinker.
It was honest information for those who had read
the pamphlet through, and for those who had not it
was unnecessary.
My pamphlet has been distributed in tens of
thousands all over Great Britain as well as at your
Mission meetings, and I have not heard of anyone
being in doubt as to its authorship. You yourself
were not in doubt. You cleverly avoided saying that
you were. But even if your ignorance had been so
phenomenal you could easily have enquired of your
�8
English friends, and you would soon have ascertained
my identity. The Freethinker is a paper that every
body affects not to know, and that everybody knows.
Men who have suffered a long imprisonment for
their principles are not so numerous in England
that any one of them can easily be forgotten. It
may be different in America. I do not know. But
I have not heard that you ever suffered for your
convictions, and I do not suppose I shall live to see
your name in any genuine list of martyrs.
So much for the “ anonymous ” character of my
pamphlet, and the technical excuse you pleaded for
not answering it. That excuse was utterly unworthy
of a public teacher, one who sets himself up to save
other people’s souls, and incidentally to elevate
their morals. This is not simply my opinion. It is
the opinion of many of your Christian friends. I
happen to know that some of them have expostu
lated with you on your embarrassing silence. You
begin to feel that you are in a tighter corner than
you thought. You have too much pride to admit a
mistake, and not enough honesty to admit a more
serious offence. Your only possible line of escape,
therefore, is to suggest—for you are too astute to
assert—that you never uttered those slanders against
Paine and Ingersoll. And this is the line you are
taking.
Now I have proved that what I alleged you said
about Paine and Ingersoll was flagrantly false. I
will now prove that you said it. And the fact that
this task is forced upon me will enable candid men,
even of your own party, to understand the kind of
person you are.
To begin with I beg to observe that, so far from
the libels on Paine and Ingersoll being unlike you, as
I hear you are suggesting, they bear all the marks
of your parentage. Specific libels are really no
worse than general libels—although they may prove
more dangerous. You denied, during your Dublin
mission, as reported in the Irish Times, that an
“ infidel ” could “ remain an honest one.” You declared
�9
that “ infidelity and whisky went together,” and that
the “ stronghold of infidelity ” was “the public-house,
the racecourse, the gambling-hell, and the brothel.”
This is general slander, it is true; but a general
slander is a slander by presumption against every
one in the category who is not expressly exempted.
You may reply, as I am told you do reply, that you
will not be responsible for “unauthorised” reports
of your addresses in the newspapers. This is a very
convenient policy when you are challenged. But it
is easy to checkmate you in this instance ; for in
your article in the Daily Chronicle, on the eve of
your London mission, you wrote that “ Infidelity
and immorality are Siamese twins. They always
exist and always grow and always fatten together.”
This covers by implication everything in the Irish
Times report of your speech—and as much more of
the same kind as your own charitable imagination
could possibly invent. I must point out, also, that
I quoted in my pamphlet a passage from your
Hard Problems of Scripttire in which you stated that
“ The unclean classes, both men and women, were
devoted admirers of Colonel Ingersoll ” and that
they “ did frequent his lectures.” This could only
mean that Ingersoll’s audiences were largely com
posed of drunkards, prostitutes, and whoremongers.
And it passes my comprehension how you could say
this, and then expect anyone to believe that the
slanders I confuted as to Paine and Ingersoll are so
unlike you. They are perfectly like you ; they smell
and taste of their natural source. And the source is
unique. You alone, I believe, amongst men of any
considerable position in the Christian world, are
capable of treating the public to such delicacies.
So much for the presumption, and now for the
precise evidence of your guilt.
I lay no stress upon the fact that your reflections
on the characters of Paine and Ingersoll were
reported to me by several correspondents in different
places. Your cue is to dispute everything at a
venture, and to take the chance of what can be
�10
proved, and you are prepared to deny everything that
would not be considered strict evidence in a court
of law. I shall therefore go at once to a particular
speech of yours at Liverpool in the latter part of
1903, and to a correspondence which gathered
round it.
Mr. W. Cain, of Liverpool, wrote me the following
letter, which I published in the Freethinker of
October 11, 1903 (and here let me say, to prevent
misconceptions, that my paper is dated for Sunday,
but is printed on Wednesday, and is on sale all over
the country on Thursday):—
“ Sir,—Dr. Torrey, in his course of evangelistic enter
tainments in this city, included two addresses to business
men, on the causes and cure of “ infidelity.”
I attended at the City Hall, Eberle-street, on Tuesday
and Wednesday last to hear the Yankee savior’s views
on this subject, and learned that almost all cases of
‘ infidelity ’ ought to be attributed to one at least of
the following five causes, viz., misrepresentation (either
of biblical teaching and interpretation, or of true
Christianity by the inconsistent conduct of professed
Christians), ignorance of the Bible, conceit, sin, resist
ance to the spirit of God.
On Tuesday evening I wrote to Dr. Torrey a letter, in
which I gave the names of several men whose life
records I thought would justify us in seeking elsewhere
than in the above list for an explanation of their ‘ infi
delity.’ The names were—John Morley, Charles
Bradlaugh, Professor Haeckel, Charles Darwin, Pro
fessor Huxley, Colonel Ingersoll, and Thomas Paine.
On Wednesday Dr. Torrey read out my letter, and
replying to it, made reference first to Haeckel, whose
writings, he said, indicated the Professor’s complete
ignorance of the Bible. Then of Darwin, he stated
that this great man had declared that at one time he
resisted the spirit of God lest it should interfere with
his scientific labors. Huxley, we were told, was not
remarkable for his candor, as anyone reading his works
would discover. Ingersoll also, was found guilty of
complete ignorance of the Bible, whilst Thomas Paine,
according to the wonderful Doctor, ‘ ran away to Paris
with another man’s wife, and eventually died in America,
leaving her deprived of all hope.’
�11
It is significant that the names of Bradlaugh and
Morley were passed over without any remark, perhaps
because their reputations are too popularly known in
England to be tampered with.
Proceeding with his lecture Dr. Torrey made a further
statement regarding Ingersoll, who, he said, had been
charged with assisting in the dissemination of obscene
literature in America, and having instituted an action
for libel, wished the case to be tried in private. On his
request being refused, said Dr. Torrey, Ingersoll with
drew the case.
It would be a great pleasure and advantage to myself,
and doubtless to others, to read any remarks you may
make upon these utterances, throughout the whole of
which no instance was quoted, nor reference to any
authority given. Simply bald statement and nothing
else. Of the story of Ingersoll and the libel case,
will yon state the true facts of the case, if such
there was ?
Perhaps you will devote at least a good substantial
‘ acid drop ’ to this matter.
William Cain.”
To this letter from Mr. Cain I appended an
editorial note, advising him to write you another
letter and ask you for particzdars. Mr. Cain took
my advice, and received the following letter
from you, which I published in the Freethinker of
November 1, with a long criticism from my own
pen:—
“ Mather’s Hotel, Dundee,
Mr. Wm. Cain,
October 14, 1903.
Liverpool.
Dear Sir :—
Your note of October 8 at hand, and also the
clipping sent me from another source containing your
letter to the ‘ Free Thinker.’ You have quoted me
very inaccurately in this letter, in regard to what I said
about Ingersoll, about Payne, and about Darwin. I
presume this misquotation was unintentional, but it
allows a loophole for one to deny the statement. How
ever, the main facts stand. Does the editor of ‘ The
Free Thinker ’ deny that Thomas Payne took another
man’s wife with him to France and lived with her ? If
this commonly believed outrageous action of Thomas
�Payne’s is not correct history, it should be known and
I certainly for one should be glad to know it, for I believe
in giving any man his due. I did not suppose that
infidels denied the conduct of Thomas Payne. In regard
to the statement about Robert Ingersoll, the alleged
libellous statements about him were made by Dr. A. C.
Dixon at that time of Brooklyn, now of Boston. Dr.
Dixon did not show any disposition to take back his
statements when Col. Ingersoll brought action against
him for libel; on the contrary, he prepared to defend
his statements in court then, had secured considerable
evidence to do it, and Col. Ingersoll requested that the
trial might be in private, but to this Dr. Dixon would
not assent and the action was withdrawn. I am sur
prised that the editor of the “ Truth Seeker” did not
know this, as it is a matter of common knowledge in
America. I am writing to America by this mail for
more details concerning the matter.
I am somewhat surprised at the difference of tone
toward me that you take in your letter to me and in the
public letter that you sent to the editor of the “ Free
Thinker.’
.
Sincerely yours,
R. A. Torrey.”
In the Freethinker of December 6, 1903, there was
an editorial paragraph referring to another letter
you had written to Mr. Cain, in which you said that
you had “ received the facts ” from America, but
that you would not use them “ damaging as they
were to Colonel Ingersoll ” because you had “ no
desire to blacken his reputation, even though it
could be justly done.” You added that you were
“ concerned with principles, not with men.” Which
led me to ask why you advanced grave charges against
leading Freethinkers, and only made “ insolent faces
and cowardly retreats” when “asked for proof.”
Now I ask, in the name of common sense, if it can
be imagined that all that correspondence and com
ment, printed in a public journal eighteen months
ago, was invented ? Is human cleverness equal to
such an amazing feat ? How could Mr. Cain know
that you were staying at Mather’s Hotel in Dun
dee? How could he forge letters bearing the marks
�18
of your composition in every sentence ? How could
they be printed in my paper, which is watched with
cat-like vigilance by its enemies, without provoking
a prompt denial ?
I cannot produce the original of your letter to
Mr. Cain dated October 14, 1903. It was type
written and it went up into the composing room as
copy. But I still have the original of your last
letter to Mr. Cain, which was not printed in the
Freethinker, but only referred to; and this letter proves
the correspondence and establishes its character. I
have also the originals of a correspondence you had
with Mr. James, of Liverpool, at the very same time ;
and in your part of it you refer to your correspondence
with Mr. Cain, and repeat in almost identical words
your ^slander against Thomas Paine.
Your last letter to Mr. Cain ran as follows:—
“ Grand Hotel, Aytoun-street,
Manchester,
Mr. Wm. Cain,
November 19, 1903.
Wavertree, Liverpool.
Dear Sir,—
Yours of November 15th received. In reply
would say I have not seen the article in the ‘ Free Thinker ’
I am not a regular reader of the ‘ Free Thinker.’ I have a
better use for my time. Quite likely I should not have
replied to it if I had seen it, for it is absolutely im
possible to keep up with all the attacks that are made
upon a public man. If I should do this, I could do
nothing else, for everywhere I go these attacks are
made. I have a large and important correspondence
for people who are sincere seekers after truth. I try to
answer their letters as far as possible but in order to do
that, it puts me at the expense of hiring someone to do
this work. If one answers a letter of this kind, it leads
to endless discussion. Your own correspondence is a
case in point. You wrote me apparently an innocent
letter, whieh I thought I ought to answer. It was you
who drove me into making those personal statements.
I seek to avoid them, and you see what a correspondence
it has involved at a tremendous cost of time.
I have received the facts about the Ingersoll case and
have them in my possession, but as damaging as they
�14
are to Col. Ingersoll I have no time to spend in endless
discussion over them. I have no desire to blacken his
reputation, even though it could be justly done. I am
concerned with principles not with men. It was your
letter that forced the personal statement.
Sincerely yours,
R. A. Torrey.”
This letter has your personality written all over it.
You talk of being attacked when you are brought to
book for your own attacks on others ; you doubt Mr.
Cain’s being an “ innocent letter ” because he had
not warned you that he was a Freethinker; and you
speak of being “ forced ” into personalities. You
were evidently feeling uneasy. But the main point
is that you admit having made “ those personal
statements.” And what were they but the libels on
Paine and Ingersoll ? Libels, by the way, which
you did not originate ; for they had done duty in the
gutter-walks of “ Christian Evidence ” long before
you picked them out for your own campaign.
I come now to your letters to Mr. James. Much
in them has no reference to this controversy. I
therefore give only pertinent extracts. In your
letter dated October 14, 1903, from Mather’s Hotel,
Dundee, you write :—
“ Yours of October 8th received. Please let me
thank you for the clipping from the ' Free Thinker ’
that you have sent me. It has been useful to me.
Does the Editor of the ‘ Free Thinker ’ mean to deny
that Thomas Payne went with another man’s wife to
France and lived with her ? Mr. Cain’s quotations of
what I said were not accurate, but if this part of the
statement about Thomas Payne is not true, I should
like to know it. I supposed that this was admitted as
a fact of commonly known history.”
In your next letter to Mr. James, dated October 20,
1903, also from Mather’s Hotel, Dundee, you say
something of still greater importance, while again
referring to your correspondence with Mr. Cain :—
In regard to Thomas Paine’s name being misspelled,
■ I am not responsible for the spelling in my letters. A
�15
person that has oftentimes a hundred letters a day cannot
’ reply to them with his own hand, but has to dictate replies.
I do not think yet that his character has been
cleared. If it can be cleared, I certainly for one,
should be glad, for I like to see any man have justice
done him. You ask why I refer to this moral obloquy
anyway. Simply because a direct question was asked
me by Mr. Cain, which I could not honorably dodge in
answering. I dislike these personalities, but the
question was asked and I had to answer it, which I did
from the facts of history as commonly believed in spite
of admirers and special pleaders to blot the course of
recorded history. I think a man’s character has a
good deal of bearing upon his judgment of the Bible.
Tom Paine attacks the Bible on account of its immor
alities. If he is indulging in immoralities, which he
says are justified by the Bible, he certainly is playing
the part of a hypocrite and his judgment is not of
much account. You ask, ‘ Why should you persist in
attributing wickedness to your antagonists ?’ For the
simple reason, in practical experience by the con
fessions of countless men, I have found that immor
ality lay at the basis of their infidelity and that when
they give up their immorality, they get that clear
vision of truth that enabled them to see there is a God
and that the Bible is His Word.”
Here you defend the wisdom of the very “ person
alities ” you “ dislike.” You explain why you
attacked the character of Thomas Paine. We have
thus the fact and the justification—both from your
own hand.
Your letters to Mr. James, which can all be
produced, refer to your correspondence with Mr.
Cain. They also contain the very libel on Thomas
Paine which you uttered in your first letter to
Mr. Cain, after having uttered it at a public meeting
in Liverpool. Your guilt with respect to Thomas
Paine is thus demonstrated.
Your second letter to Mr. Cain, which can also be
produced, clearly shows that you had been attacking
the character of Colonel Ingersoll; and your state
ment that you had “ received the facts about the
Ingersoll case ” proves the authenticity of the first
�letter in which you said that you were “ writing to
America by this mail for more details concerning
the matter.” Thus your guilt with respect to
Ingersoll is also demonstrated.
Your letters to Mr. Cain and to Mr. James further
show that you were quite aware of what was
appearing in the Freethinker. .And when you said,
in the second of the above letters to Mr. James,
that you did “not think yet that his [Paine’s]
character had been cleared” you were obviously
referring to my vindication of Paine in the Freethvnker, to which Mr. James had drawn your
attention.
-v These patent facts and inevitable conclusions,
together with your present equivocal attempts at
repudiation, make you look odious as a libeller and
contemptible as a coward. I say this with sorrow
as well as disgust, for I do not like to think ill of a
fellow being, I have no delight in any man’s humili
ation, and I would rather hear of your repentance
even at this late hour than see you continue in your
evil courses. You probably entered upon them as
sinners usually do, little by little, a step at a time.
You found that stories about “ wicked infidels ”
tickled the palate of your orthodox audiences, and
you went on from bad to worse, until ease and
impunity made you reckless. You did not count on
a day of reckoning. You overlooked the possibility
of being challenged. You forgot, in defiling the
graves of dead Freethinkers, that a living one might
stride in and arrest you. I have done that. If I
have nothing else I have love for the heroes you
calumniated. And you who libelled them are but as
a grain of sand which the wind lifts to the top of a
P5™mid'
Yours, etc.,
2 Newcastle-street,
G. W. Foote.
London, E. C ,
May 29, 1905.
The Freethinker is published every Thursday, price Twopence,
at 2 Newcastle Street, E.C,
t
�
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
Guilty or not guilty? an open letter to the Rev. Dr R.A. Torrey
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. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Concerns the publication and distribution of Foote's pamphlet Dr Torrey and the infidels, in which Foote "endeavoured to vindicate the characters of Thomas Paine and Colonel Ingersoll against [Torrey's] slanderous aspersions." -- p.4. Signature at head of cover title: B.G. Ralph-Brown [?], Bristol 1905. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1905
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N243
Subject
The topic of the resource
Free thought
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 (Guilty or not guilty? an open letter to the Rev. Dr R.A. Torrey), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
NSS
R.A. (Reuben Archer) Torrey
Robert Green Ingersoll
Thomas Paine
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/aa57c0ab97a7743ca652be664a9562cf.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=l9r-yW4rO8C0oHOTWlD1jCiQ2amd1uO0iIOhb1N%7EM3C1uFvdTSQMsKT1EHdh9l4%7EpUe0-80CXrOTuPWh9bhSney-XAwO6sVoxXdgCoV8AWlC4jZ9aXOmbV%7EFc5wyxj1Fe7u0Qz9BK5QRWTfRqRFFGnbinKPzWejyZ5fnDZFzn6Bf0KrQerCdviqmkoWy3DDIv4%7EGJwEHS7QDcyo2c36DnY0HOF6csZVH26e9Yq6KM6js1BqYDJd3CWQgc6OB1vnUex0gb0X%7Eb3-L%7ECXYnwedoY5MBei3wold235U3AmzZ07K5cXHoMRfpfjH64dPYuEX1F0fJmWf565u6YB0ob9vlw__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
1e04dc1d64616de6e4c7290b5e18e75b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
DR.
TORREY
AND
THE
BIBLE
FOR FREE DISTRIBUTION
THE PIONEER PRESS
2 Newcastle Street, London, E.C
1905
i.jirt'iW'AN L.x • u
•D:i
�DR. TORREY AND THE BIBLE
-------------♦——■
INTRODUCTION
Dr. Torrey has been conducting Missions in the principal
cities of Great Britain and Ireland. He is now conducting
the great Albert Hall Mission in the metropolis. He hopes
to “ save ” London: and he believes that if he saves
London he will save the world—which is probably true.
The regular Christian preachers take a back seat now
that Dr. Torrey is in London. According to the secretary
of the Albert Hall Mission, it is intended that the people of
this metropolis shall have a chance of hearing the Gospel
fairly and squarely laid before them.
Now this is very
interesting. London swarms with churches and chapels, to
say nothing of mission rooms and Sunday schools; it has
thousands of professional teachers of Christianity—Catholic
priests, Church clergymen, Nonconformist ministers, and
Salvation Army officers; these are all engaged week by
week, and year after year, in preaching the Gospel to the
inhabitants of this mighty city; yet it has been thought
necessary to bring a hustling American revivalist to London,
at a cost of £17,000, in order to give its citizens a chance
■of having this very Gospel presented to them. Can you
imagine anything more wonderful ?
We are told that most of the Christian Churches of
London—with the exception, of course, of the Roman
Catholic Church—are promoting the Albert Hall Mission or
have given it their blessing. It seems, therefore, to be a
co-operative - enterprise ; and, on this understanding, one is
entitled to ask whether the leading men in those Churches
endorse Dr. Torrey’s teachings, especially in relation to the
Bible.
You will see that this is a most important point. What
the American revivalist may think about theatres, dancing,
�-I
( 3 )
and such things, is insignificant in comparison. The Bible
is the Holy Scripture of the Christian religion. A Christian
cannot exist or be conceived without it. The Bible is his
Word of God. This is what all Christians say; and if
they say no more you might fancy, they were all agreed.
But they do say more. They differ as to /zoa’ the Bible is the
Word of God. Dr. Torrey says one thing on this point, and
men like General Booth and Father Ignatius agree with him.
But the leading men in most of the Churches do not agree
with him. Many things in the Bible which he regards as
absolutely true they regard as legends and fictions; and some
of the things which he defends as the highest morality
they abandon as plain savagery.
Now if people call the Bible the Word of God, and yet
read its contents so differently, is it not absurd to say that
they agree simply because they use the same shibboleth ?
What we ask the reader to do is to follow us in a brief
examination of Dr. Torrey’s views on the Bible, and a com
parison of them with the views of men of light and leading
in the Christian Churches. And before we finish we think
they will see that he is fifty years behind the time in the matter
of Biblical criticism—just as he is more than fifty years
behind in the matter of modesty, charity, and philosophy.
THE STORY OF GENESIS
Dr. lorrey is the author of a little work on Hard Problems
of Script are, a.nd its opening section deals with “The First
Chapter of Genesis.”’ It starts as follows :—
“One of the favorite points of attack upon the Bible
by infidels is its opening chapter. It is said that the
teachings of this chapter are proven to be absurd by
the assured conclusions of modern science.”
This is denied by Dr. Torrey, who tries to refute it. But
before we deal with his attempted refutation let us see how
other Christians look upon the story of Genesis.
It is safe to say that there is not a single scholar in any
Christian Church who regards the Bible story of creation as
possessing any scientific value. Consequently these scholars
must be included amongst the “infidels” at whom Dr. Torrey
is so fond of railing. Not only Churchipen like Canon
�( 4 )
Driver, Bishop Gore. Professor Sanday, and the late Dean.
Farrar, but Nonconformists like the Rev. Dr. Horton, the
Rev. R. J. Campbell, the Rev. Dr. John Clifford, and the Rev.
Dr. Guinness Rogers, would laugh at Dr. Torrey’s denuncia
tion of the “infidels” who have no respect for the “science”
of the first chapter of Genesis. They are such “ infidels ”
themselves. And the fact ought to be told to the people
who flock to Dr. Torrey’s Mission.
Bishop Gore, of Birmingham, calls the story of the
Creation and the Fall of Man a “ myth or allegorical
picture” (Lux Mundi, p. 357). Dean Farrar makes a
sweeping admission which covers this point and a great deal
more.
“ The knowledge of the writers of Scripture on the
subject of exact science was simply the human and
individual knowledge of those writers, and that was the
knowledge, or rather the ignorance, of the most un
scientific of all nations in the most unscientific of all
ages. To the Hebrews by whom the greater part of the
Bible was written science was unknown ; their immemo
rial habits of thought were wholly alien from the
scientific spirit ” [The Bible : its Meaning and Supremacy,
pp. 146. 147).
Dean Farrar treated the Genesaic story of the origin of
things as an “ allegory ” or a “ philosopheme.” This is the
view now taken by all well-informed persons, although the
story may have been regarded as literally true by the ancient
Jews, as it was until quite recently by the modern Chris
tians. Even the great Sir Oliver Lodge, the Principal of
the new Birmingham University, in his recent reply
to Professor Haeckel, refers as a matter of course to
“the old Genesis legend” and “legends of apples and
serpents and the like” [Hibbert Journal, January 1905,
p. 329).
This is the attitude of all decently educated people nowa
days. But it is not the attitude of Dr. Torrey. He defends
the scientific character of the first chapter of Genesis. Let
us see how he does it.
' His first answer to the “ infidels ” is that the Bible use of
the word day is not limited to periods of twenty-four hours ”
but is “ frequently used for a period of time of undefined
�( 5 )
length.” To prove this he refers to four texts in which the
expression “ that day ” is used as meaning “ that age ” or
“ those times.” But what trifling this is ! There was no
need to refer to texts at all. Everyone knows that when a
man says “ in my day ” he does not mean “ in my twentyfour hours.” Words have often a primary meaning and a
secondary meaning; a literal meaning and a metaphorical
meaning; and which is intended in any particular place
is to be determined by the context. Now the first chapter
of Genesis not only speaks of six days of Creation, but it
keeps saying that “ the evening and the morning were the
first day,” the second day, the third day, and so on to the
end of the narrative. It is this that fixes the meaning of
the word “ day ” in the present instance. But the great Dr.
Torrey did not think it worth mentioning.
Dr. Torrey proceeds to administer another dig in the ribs
to the “ infidels.”
“ It is further urged against the credibility of the
account of Creation given in Gen. i. that ‘ it speaks of
there being light before the sun existed, and it is absurd
to think of light before the sun, the source of light.’
The one who says this displays his ignorance of modern
science. Anyone who is familiar with the nebular hypo
thesis, commonly accepted among scientific men to-day,
knows that there was cosmic light ages before the sun
was a separate body.”
This is mere trifling. What the Bible says is that evening
and morning, which involve day and night, existed on this
earth three days before God made the sun ; while school
boys now know that the earth is a child of the sun, and that
night and day depend upon the earth’s revolution in its orbit
around the centre of the system to which it belongs. The
Bible also says that vegetation, including fruit trees, was
brought into existence before the sun. Are we to suppose,
then, that the apples and oranges were grown in “ cosmic
light ” ? Or is Dr. Torrey—a native of the land of Artemus
Ward and Mark Twain—playing off an elaborate joke upon
the innocent Britishers ?
Will it be believed that, after dwelling on “ the mar
vellous accord of the order of creation given in Genesis with
that worked out by the best scientific investigation,”
�( 6 )
Dr. Torrey gives the show away by declaring his opinion
that Genesis does not relate the history of creation at all ?'
Here are his own words :—
“ There is grave reason to doubt if anything in
Genesis i. after verse i relates to the original creation
- of the universe. It seems rather to refer to the refitting
of a world that had been created and afterwards
plunged into chaos by the sin of some pre-Adamic race
to the abode of the present race that inhabits it—the
Adamic race.”
Thus the great American revivalist saws off the bough of
the tree on which he has been sitting. At the same time he
displays his wonderful knowledge of up-to-date science.
His friends, should really ask him to state in what standard
work on biology or anthropology they may find an account of
the “ Adamic race.” It would also be interesting to know
what the “pre-Adamic races” were like. And while Dr.
Torrey is about it he might tell us what men of science
teach that the world was ever “ plunged into chaos.” He
might' even tell us in what scientific book, or what dictionary
of scientific terms, the word “chaos ” is to be found.
CAIN’S WIFE
Dr. Torrey starts the second section of the little work we
are criticising with another dig at the “ infidels.” This is
what he says :—
“ One of the favorite questions with infidels of a
certain class is ‘ Where did Cain get his wife ?’ I have
also met many young Christians who have been greatly
puzzled and perplexed over this question.”
“ Infidels ” do not spend their time over this question. It
is clear that Dr. Torrey knows nothing about them. It is
also clear that the “ young Christians ” he meets with possess
little education and intelligence. Only the ignorant believe
in the actual existence of Cain or Cain’s wife nowadays,
Dr. Torrey puts in a bit of buffoonery about “ a sceptic”1
who came to him to ask where Cain got his wife. With the
keen instinct of his profession, Dr. Torrey asked him “ Isn’t
there something wrong with your life ?” And it soon
transpired that “ the real difficulty was not about Cain’s
wife, but about another man’s wife.” Such is the character.
�( 7 )
and such is the fate, of “ sceptics ” in Dr. Torrey’s farthing
novelettes.
The upshot of Dr. Torrey’s discussion of the Cain s wife
episode is that “ Cain married his own sister.” Precisely
so. That is what the “infidels” have always said. Ihey
have also said that Cain’s marriage with his sister throws
the stain of incest upon the cradle of the human race—
which might have been obviated if Jehovah had created tiro
first pairs of human beings instead of one. But this objec
tion is not noted by Dr. Torrey. He prefers to answer
what nobody says.
According to the Bible story the second generation of
human beings—the offspring of Adam and Eve’s children—
were all first cousins. This leads Dr. Torrey to observe
that “ the intermarriage of cousins is fraught with frightful
consequences,” but “ in the dawn of human history it was
not so.” Well, he knows as much about the dawn of human
history as he knows about present human history. The
“ frightful consequences ” he refers to are imaginary as he
would know if he were acquainted with the researches of
Francis Darwin and others on this subject.
HUMAN SACRIFICES
This is the heading of the third section of Dr. Torrey’
work. He complains that “ the enemies of the Bible ” have
tried to make capital out of the story of Abraham and Isaac.
But he also admits that “ not a few Christians have been
bewildered and distressed by this story.
It is urged by Dr. Torrey that Abraham was not ordered
to “kill Isaac” but to “offer him.” Could anything be
more ridiculous ? The story is serious enough in the Bible,
but Dr. Torrey reduces it to a pantomime. He admits that
Isaac was bound upon the altar and “ presented to God as
a whole offering,” yet he contends—although he does not say
it in so many words—that Abraham had no idea that his
son was to be actually offered up as a sacrifice. But in that
case the whole proceeding was an utter farce. We are told
that it was atrial of Abraham’s faith ; and what sort of a trial
could it be if there were no apprehension of danger to Isaac ?
Dr. Torrey deals in the same fashion with the story of
�Jephthah. “ We are nowhere told,” he says, ‘‘that Jephthah
did burn his daughter.” Well, the words mean that, or they
mean nothing. Jephthah was going forth to fight the
Ammonites. Before he went “the spirit of the Lord ” came
upon him.
“ And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said,
If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon
into mine hands,
“ Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the
doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace
from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord’s,
and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” (Judges xi.
30, 31)Jephthah came back victorious, and his daughter came out
to meet him. She was his only child, and he loved her, but
he could not go back upon his word, and he “ did with her
•according to his vow.”
It is difficult to imagine, anything plainer. If the Bible
does not mean that Jephthah sacrificed his daughter as a
burnt offering to the Lord, we may as well put it on the top
shelf as a book of puzzles.
Dr. Torrey says that the Hebrew word translated “burnt
■offering” simply means “offering” and “does not neces
sarily involve the thought of burning.” But is it fair to raise
such a point before a popular audience ? How are they to
be judges as to the proper translation of Hebrew ? The
English Bible says “ burnt offering.” And this is in harmony
with the Mosaic Law ; for, according to Leviticus xxvii. 28, 29,
both lower animals and human beings devoted to the Lord
were not to be redeemed, but “ surely be put to death.”
Canon Cook, in the Speaker's Commentary, says that “ what
soever ” in Jephthah’s vow should be “whosoever,” that
Jephthah intended his vow “to apply to human beings not
animals,” and that the original words “ preclude any other
meaning than that Jephthah contemplated a human sacrifice.”
Dr. Torrey may reply that he prefers his own version
But what right has he to dogmatise in opposition to scholars
of far greater reputation than himself ?
Josephus, the Jewish historian, distinctly says that
Jephthah “ sacrificed his daughter as a burnt offering.” Al
the early Christian fathers—including St. Ambrose, St.
�( 9 )
Jerome, and St. Chrysostom—took the same view. The
great Catholic theologian, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Calmet,
the famous Catholic scholar, follow this opinion. So does the
Protestant historian of the Jews, Dean Milman, who laughs
at the idea that Jephthah’s daughter .spent the rest of her
•days in a kind of convent, and says “ it is certain that vows
of celibacy were totally unknown among the Hebrews.”
Bishop Warburton, the learned author of the Divine Legation
of Moses, poured contempt on the efforts of the Dr. Torreys
of his day, who advanced all sorts of theories in preference
to admitting that Jephthah’s daughter was burnt on the altar
•of Jehovah. “ Solutions like these,” he said, “ expose sacred
scripture to the scorn and derision of unbelievers.”
Jephthah’s vow had its parallels in Pagan history or
legend. One of the best known instances is that of
Agamemnon, who led the Greeks in the war against Troy,
and immolated his daughter Iphigenia to appease the gods,
and procure favorable winds for the fleet which was detained
at Aulis.
What is certain is that the Jews were a Semitic people,
and that all the Semitic gods were ravenous for human
victims. Nor is it reasonable to expect the Jehovah of early
Jewish history to be any better than the other deities of
whom he is said to have been “jealous.” Tolstoy calls him
■a “ terrible and wicked monster,” and the ancient annals of
"the Jews, as preserved in the Old Testament, reek with
bloodshed and cruelty.
SLAUGHTER OF THE CANAANITES
Bloodshed and cruelty were never worse exemplified than
in the Jewish extermination of the original inhabitants of
Palestine. In some parts of the country, by Jehovah’s
•express order, the natives were to be butchered indiscrimi
nately. The Jews were to slay all, man, woman, and child,
and leave alive nothing that breathed. In other parts cruelty
was mixed with lust. Dr. Torrey puts it that “ the adult
males were to be slain, but the women and children to
be spared.” “ Spared ” is a good word, and as Dr. Torrey
refers us to Deuteronomy xx. 10-15, we will see what it means.
“ But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle,
�(
IO
)
and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt
thou take unto thyself.”
The women were part of the “spoil." The Jews were to“ take them unto ” themselves. They were to become the
wives or concubines of the men who had butchered their
fathers, brothers, and husbands. That is how they were
“ spared.”
When the Jews defeated the Midianites they brought “all
the women and children ” with other spoils of the war “untoMoses,” and his orders throw a flood of light on that same
“spared.”
“ Now therefore kill every male among the little ones,,
and kill every woman that hath known man by lying,
with him. But all the women children that have not
known a man by lying with him, keep alive for your
selves ” (Numbers xxxi. 17, 18).
That is how they were “spared.” The male Jews kept
the Midianite virgins for themselves. It may be added that
“ the Lord’s tribute ” (verse 40) was thirty-two virgins..
What the Lord wanted them for is not very intelligible. No
doubt they fell to the share of the priests. Divided
between Aaron and Eleazar they would be sixteen apiece—
and a veil may be drawn over their fate.
Dr. Torrey defends the slaughter of the Canaanites. He
almost rejoices over it. He declares that the command to
exterminate them was “ a command big with mercy and
love.” They were not fit to live. They were utterly and
irredeemably depraved. Their death was a blessing to the
Jews, whom they might have contaminated if they had
lived. It was also a blessing to themselves, for the sooner
they died the sooner they stopped sinning. This is a point
on which Dr. Torrey feels strongly. He says that it is “an
act of mercy” to kill children who are likely to grow upvicious. Were it not for the hope that they may awake
to the saving Gospel of Christ, Dr. Torrey “ could wish
that all the babes born in the slums might be slain in in
fancy.” He would kill them out of sheer tenderness—thiswonderful American reformer!
But let us pause to ask on what authority we are to
believe that the Canaanites were too wicked to be allowed to
live ? The only authority is that of the very men who
�(. II
)
massacred them and took possession of all their property.
It reminds us of a committee of butchers sitting in judgment
on a flock of sheep. It is a travesty of honor and justice.
And a man who defends it in this age of civilisation is
absolutely unfit to be a moral teacher -of his fellow-men.
There are many Christian divines of all Churches who are
now ready to brand as infamous the very things that Di.
Torrey praises as exhibitions of divine benevolence. One
instance will suffice to show what we mean. Dean F arrar
speaks of the “ worse than Armenian atrocities ” which the
Jews inflicted on their enemies. He denounces the “ ghastly *
massacre of women and innocent children.
He lefers to
the “ miserable pleas which have sometimes been urged in
favor of the righteousness of the wars of extermination.”
But what, he asks, can “ excuse the cold-blooded butchery
of captive women and innocent little ones, and the retention
of others to be slaves and concubines ?” And he declares
that it was only “ in their moral ignorance ” that the
Israelites could have imagined that “ by such- deeds they
were pleasing God and obeying his commands” Cl he Bible,
PP-75, 76)Thus it appears that what Dean F arrar regards as atrocious
Dr. Torrey regards as a blessing and a mercy. Well, there
is no accounting for taste—or the want of it.
IMPURE BIBLE STORIES
This is Dr. Torrey’s heading, not ours ; it stands over the
fifth section of his little book.
There are things in the Bible that its best friends
often wish out of it. Dr. Torrey is of a very different
opinion. “ We may well praise God,” he says, “ that he
has put these things in the Bible.” He seems to regard
them as the clearest proofs that it is the Word of God.
He takes the position that “the Bible is in part a book of
moral anatomy and therapeutics,” and that it necessarily
“ describes sins that cannot wisely be dealt with in a mixed
audience.” But he argues that “to speak plainly of sin,
even the vilest of sins, in order to expose its loathsomeness
and in order to picture man as he really is, is not obscenity.
Let it be observed that this is no vindication of a book
�( 12 )
which is placed in the hands.of children. Does it suffice in
the case of adult readers ? Let us see.
Suppose we take the story of Lot and his daughters.
What is there to redeem its filthiness ? Lot’s wife was
killed for looking back at their burning home, but no con
demnation is passed upon the other persons in this delectable
narrative. Neither did Josephus, the Jewish historian, con•demn them ; and his English translator, the Rev. Dr.
Whiston, was “not satisfied” that Lot’s daughters had
-acted wrongly “in a case which appeared to them of un-avoidable necessity.”
Who can discern the slightest moral lesson in this dis-,
.gusting story ? Its real object can be stated in a few words
1 he Moabites and the Ammonites were hereditary enemies
•of the Jews; and the Jewish annalists represented Moab
-and Ammon, the supposed founders of those two nations, as
having been the fruit of incest between a drunken old man
-and his beastly daughters. It was a “ patriotic ” libel on
the hated foreigners.
Dr. Farrar pleads that the “coarseness” of the Bible
must be excused on the ground of its Oriental origin. What
shocks the modern Western mind “gave no such shock to
-ancient and Eastern readers.” This, of course, is a rational
plea, as far as it goes. At least it recognises the difficulty.
Dr. Farrar even admits that “ There are other passages of
Scripture, happily disguised by the euphemism of transla
tions, which, if their exact meaning were understood, could
not be read without a blush ” (The Bible, p. 221).
Dr. Torrey thinks he helps his case by a foul-mouthed
attack on “ infidels.” Part of it is a disgraceful libel on the
late Colonel Ingersoll, which we are dealing with in a com
panion pamphlet to this one, The temper of this American
.apostle of the religion of Christ is displayed in the following
sentence:—
“ The child who is brought up on infidel literature
and conversation is the easiest prey there is to the
seducer and the procuress.”
“ Infidels ”—by which he means Secularists, Freethinkers,
Agnostics, Rationalists, and even Deists—can afford to smile
nt the convulsions of this malignant mountebank.
�( 13 )
Even if “ infidels ” were all wicked, and ten times morewicked than Dr. Torrey represents them, it would not prove
that a black spot in the Bible is white. Dr. Torrey has mis
taken the argument.
CONTRADICTIONS IN THE BIBLE
Most of Dr. Torrey’s sixth section is occupied with a
farcical tale of one of the many “ infidels ” he has put to
shame. This particular “ infidel ” was great on Bible con
tradictions, and Dr. Torrey found him looking for the book
of Psalms in the N ew Testament!
The Higher Critics admit that there are plenty of contra
dictions in the Bible. But they do not stand up for its.
verbal inspiration. Dr. Torrey does, and he will not admit
any contradictions at all. He takes the New Testament
text, “ No man hath seen God at any time,” and the Old.
Testament text to the effect that Moses, Aaron, Nadab, and
Abihu, and seventy elders, went up a mountain and “ saw
the God of Israel.” This “ certainly looks like a fiat con
tradiction,” he says, but he devotes two pages to showing
that it is not so. Those who have a taste for verbal jugglery
may follow him in this argument. We regard it as beneath
contempt.
CHRIST’S THREE DAYS IN THE GRAVE
Dr. Torrey’s seventh section is of no importance. Hiseighth section deals with the difficulty of understanding how
Jesus spent “ three days and three nights in the heart of the.
earth ” between late on Friday afternoon and early on
Sunday morning. Dr. Torrey soon settles this difficulty..
He affirms that Jesus was crucified on Wednesday. This
leaves three clear days—and where’s the trouble then ?
This beautiful theory is based upon the statement in
John xix. 14 that the day on which Jesus was tried and
crucified was “ the preparation of the Passover.” But the
three other Gospels represent Jesus as having already eaten
of the Passover with his disciples before his arrest. Dr.
Torrey describes this as one of the ” false impressions ’’they
conveyed. He says that John wrote later than the other
Evangelists, with ” an evident intention to correct false im-
�( 14 )
pressions that one might get from reading the other
gospels.” Here then is one of those Bible contradictions
which we were told did not exist. John is on one side;
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are on the other; and, when the
great Dr. Torrey jumps into the scale with John, the other
scale—with three against two in it—soon kicks the beam.
This method of solving Bible difficulties is bound to
succeed—if the audience will stand it. And it must be
allowed that Dr. Torrey’s audiences are expected to stand
a good deal.
JONAH AND THE WHALE
Dr. Torrey complains that the story of Jonah is “a
favorite butt of ridicule with unbelievers,” and he proceeds
with a long face to argue that it is true in every detail—
barring the whale. The animal that took Jonah in out of
the Wet is called a whale in the New Testament, but
the Greek word means a “ sea monster.” Any other
person than Dr. Torrey would see that this is a very insig
nificant point. The wonder of Jonah’s three-days sub
marine excursion still remains.
While on the subject of “ sea monsters ” Dr. Torrey
tickles his readers’ bump of wonder. Let us hear him :—
“ It is recorded that a man fell overboard in the
Mediterranean and was swallowed by one of these sea
monsters, the monster killed, and the man rescued
alive. A whole horse was taken out of the belly of
another.’
It is recorded ! Dr. Torrey might have told us where.
Was it in an American journal—in the silly season ?
Whether the “whale” swallowed Jonah, or Jonah swal
lowed the whale, it is evident that Dr. Torrey is prepared to
swallow both. He says that anyone who believes in an
Almighty Being
“ will have no difficulty in believing that he could with
out the least difficulty prepare a fish with a mouth and
a throat big enough to swallow not only Jonah, but the
whole ship too, and with a belly capacious enough to
furnish Jonah with all the space and air needed for
three days and three nights’ lodging, even without occa
sionally coming to the top of the water for ventilation,”
�What a swallow 1 Nearly as large as Dr. Toney s. And
what physiology! Fancy air enough for Jonah to breathe in
safety for seventy-two hours, when an average man would
•exhaust a tank of air eight feet each way in a few minutes!
And what sort of a “ sea monster ” is it that “ ventilates ”
through its “ stomach ” I
Dr. Torrey gravely rebukes “those who would have us
believe that the Jonah story is not historic fact, but allegory*
He says that no one who “ accepts the authority of Jesus
■Christ ” can believe this. In the next section he affirms that
all who reject Jesus Christ will be tormented day and night
for ever. All the Higher Critics, therefore, and all the
Christian clergy, as well as laymen, who believe that the
Jonah story is allegory, and not history, are treading the
primrose path to the everlasting bonfire. Dr. Torrey says
so, and he knows, he knows.
Probably not one Christian clergyman in a thousand
believes that the book of Jonah is a record of actual facts.
All the Higher Critics are agreed on this point. Canon
Driver puts the sceptical case quite strongly in his standard
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament (p. 303), and
Dean Farrar does the same in his well-known work The Bible
(pp. 233-239). The latter, indeed, asks whether anyone
could ever have been supposed to understand the book of
Jonah literally. He supposes that even the Jews could hardly
have been so foolish.
The fact is that Dr. Torrey is terribly behind the times.
He is not a sign of the growth of orthodoxy, but a sign of its
decay. He is not only behind the “ infidels,” but behind the
leading men iu nearly all the Churches, and behind even the
man in the street. If he were to mix freely with ordinary
people, and talk to them under the rose, he would learn
that they have nothing but laughter for tales of talking
serpents and asses, of women turned into pillars of rock
salt, and men taking submarine trips in living “ sea monsters.”
CONCLUSION
It is thirty years ago since Matthew Arnold told the
Christian world, not the “ infidels,” that “ the reign of the
Bible miracles is doomed.” From this fate there is no escape.
�( 16 )
T he Highet Clitics see it. and are gradually descending to the
ground of Naturalism to avoid a catastrophe. Dr. Torrey
does not see it. Perhaps he is incapable of seeing it. But
the spirit of progress will not await his convenience. Nor
will Dr. 1 orrey succeed in making any impression on the
vast public outside the Churches. He may convert the con
verted, he may infuse a little temporary enthusiasm into the
lukewarm. More than this he has not done, and more than
this he will never do.
When he winds up his old-fashioned little treatise on the
the difficulties of the Bible by consigning all who do not
share his views of it to “everlasting anguish, ’ he simply
makes himself ridiculous. The doctrine of eternal hell is
dead. It is not so much as mentioned in the new Free
Churches Catechism. And a man who cries “ Believe what
I teach, 01 be damned is now looked upon as a curious
relic of old times, or as a person suffering from a bad attack
of swelled-head.
Nothing that Dr. Torrey can say, nothing that any man
can say. will ever restore the Bible to its old position.
Everyone who knows the facts is perfectly aware that the
theory of the verbal inspiration of the Bible is doomed.
While the American revivalist is consigning people to hell
for not believing that theory, it is repudiated by the leaders
of all the principal Christian Churches in England. It is
the “ Higher Criticism ” that is really at the bottom of the
great disruption in Scotland. And when the Church Congress
brings forward a scientist like Sir Oliver Lodge'to adorn its
meetings, he frankly advises them to provide Jesus with two
human parents instead of one. Even the narratives of the
Virgin Birth and the Resurrection are now under debate in
Christian circles. What childishness it is, then, on Dr.
Torrey’s part to try to frighten people into retaining the
more fantastic and less important miracles of the Old
Testament.
Readers of this pamphlet are invited to read “ The Freethinker,'’
edited by the writer of this pamphlet, and published at ’ 2
Newcastle-street, E.C., every Thursday, price twopence.
�
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
Dr Torrey and the Bible
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. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Part of the NSS pamphlet collection. Author believed to be G.W. Foote: note at foot of p.16 states that The Freethinker is edited by the writer of this pamphlet. Reuben Archer Torrey was an American evangelist, pastor, educator, and writer.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
The Pioneer Press
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1905
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N641
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 (Dr Torrey and the Bible), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible
NSS
R.A. (Reuben Archer) Torrey