1
10
1
-
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