-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/8152de9939ea45dc2c9b93dad7a55112.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=M1wAeTiq7YEORJIcQtjaCxTAse3kRb40TJl9gs4vP%7EmCJ7WcCkSfFNK7L1JumRzfa8ooV2990t6B8ytICzwvVL-o6grRfnuHT6LyjRP33p9kYn8WaeP6ZYu%7E8ZhlP2MZCwO9F62LrLcZiblWd0LkOJpv6%7E02tjEGwZ3MDZQHsHQ4U6iF3Dzp5eJeFS3RBsLEOn9ez4sdAJeLTzvTJoS6wG3XJy24irzo07jzXDJZsf9zkfNsbrJ%7E2RhS7X05yiPvyKTYkUejcd9QMXIkZFiAwnE9ZSxQxlVkBe6i8KXyZp3v5ku%7E6NHb-Y0qj0g8BX8YoHGJIaXPyYaznOFcNmYAbA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
024752376b532e30a7e070a29db47708
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCrr?nr,v
ZZ/A OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
THE
SUBJECT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
JULIAN,
Author of “ The Popular Faith Exposed," “Bible Words: Human,
not Divine," “ The Pillars of the Church," Etc.
ISSUED FOR THE
London:
WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON’S COURT, FLEET St.
Price One Penny.
�OUR PROPAGANDIST PRESS COMMITTEE.
This Committee is formed for the purpose of assisting in the pro
duction and circulation of liberal publications.
The members of the Committee are Mr. G. J. Holyoake, Dr.
Bithell, Mr. F. J. Gould, Mr. Frederick Millar, and Mr. Charles
A. Watts.
It is thought that the most efficient means of spreading the prin
ciples of Rationalism is that of books and pamphlets. Many will
read a pamphlet who would never dream of visiting a lecture hall.
At the quiet fireside arguments strike home which might be dissi
pated by the excitement of a public debate. The lecturer wins his
thousands, the penman his tens of thousands.
The aim of the various writers is to obtain converts by per
suasiveness rather than undue hostility towards the popular creeds.
The author of each pamphlet is alone responsible for the state
ments contained therein.
All who are in sympathy with the movement are earnestly re
quested to contribute towards the expenses as liberally as their
means will allow. The names of donors will not be published
without their consent.
Contributions should be forwarded to Mr. Charles A. Watts,
17, Johnson’s Court, Fleet Street, London, E.C. Cheques should
be crossed “ Central Bank uf London, Blackfriars Branch.”
PUBLICATIONS ISSUED FOR THE COMMITTEE BY
MESSRS. WATTS & CO.
Agnostic Problems. Being an Examination of Some Questions
of the Deepest Interest, as Viewed from the Agnostic Standpoint.
By R. Bithell, B.Sc. Ph.D. Cheap Popular Edition, cloth, 2s. 6d.
post free.
_____
id. each, by post ij£d.,
Agnosticism and Immortality. By S. Laing, author of “ Modern
Science and Modern Thought,” etc.
Humanity and Dogma. By Amos Waters.
What the Old Testament Says About Itself. By Julian.
The Old Testament Unhistoric and Unscientific. By Julian.
The Four Gospels. By Julian.
The Subject of the Four Gospels. By Julian.
LIBERTY OF BEQUESTS COMMITTEE.
This Committee is formed for procuring the passing of a law
legalising bequests for Secular and Free Thought purposes.
Subscriptions in furtherance of the object of this Committee may
be sent to Mr. George Anderson, Hon. Treasurer, 35a, Great
George Street, London, S.W.
�6
IS’
Part IV.
THE SUBJECT OF THE FOUR GOSPELS.
In the former paper we dwelt on the books called
“ Gospels,” and showed them to be unworthy of credit;
we will now take up the subject of the main character,
Jesus, and show why the memoirs cannot be historically
true.
The Birth of Jesus.—Fortunately, both Matthew and
Luke have given us particulars of the birth of Jesus,
which may be tested : so that we are not left without
data. Matthew informs us that when Jesus was born
in Bethlehem, in the days of Herod the King, there
came wise men (Magi) from the East to Jerusalem,
saying, Where is he that is born—King of the Jews—
for we have seen his star in the East, and are come to
worship him ?
After the murder of Julius Caesar, Antony constituted
his friend Herod “ King of Judea.” This was b.c. 40.
He reigned somewhat less than 37 years, and died at
the age of 70, b.c. 4. Towards the close of his life he
suffered much from ulceration of the bowels, and, being
ordered by his physicians to try the warm baths of
Callirhoe, he was absent from Jerusalem about two
years, and died at Jericho, on his way home; so that he
was not in Jerusalem at all after B.c. 6. If, therefore,
the Magi had an interview with him, it must have been
before he started for Callirhoe—that is, before b.c. 6.
Now look what Luke says. He tells us that Jesus
was born at Bethlehem when Cyrenius was governor of
Judaea and Augustus Emperor of Rome. Cyrenius, or
Quirinus, was pro-consul of Syria a.d. 5-14, and
Augustus died a.d. 5 ; so that the birth of Jesus, accord
ing to Luke, was a.d. 5. According to Matthew, it was
�44
THE old and new testament examined.
b.c. 6 or 7, a difference of eleven or twelve years. As
both these writers were guided into all truth by the Holy
Ghost, I must leave it to that unerring authority to re
concile these two accounts. We, who are guided by
common sense, cannot see how 6 or 7 b.c. is the same
date as a.d. 5 or 6.
But there is just another little difficulty : how came
Mary and Joseph to be wandering about Bethlehem for
two years ? They lived in Galilee, went to Bethlehem to
be taxed, and, as the caravansary was full, took up their
quarters in an out-house, a kind of cave used occasion
ally as a shed for oxen ; and here Mary was confined.
A new star, we are told, appeared at the time in Persia,
which the Magi, by some occult science, knew to
announce the birth of a child in Judea, destined to
become King of the Jews; but he never was, From
Ispahan to Jerusalem, as a caravan travels, would be
some 1,500 miles over pathless deserts, lofty mountains,
and numberless deviations from a bee-line, or, as we say
in England, “as the crow flies.” Herod himself calcu
lated that the journey would take somewhat less than
two years. What business had Mary and Joseph to be
loitering about this cave for the best part of two years ?
And a child about two years old is not generally swathed
in swaddling-clothes and laid in a manger. Mary was
well enough to go down into Egypt; why on earth did
she not return home ?
See what a host of fabrications hang on this fable.
Jesus could not have been born b.c. 6 or 7, and also a.d. 5.
As Herod was not alive, and was not at Jerusalem, the
Magi could not have had an interview with him, and
there was no slaughter of the Innocents. Mary and
Joseph were not at Bethlehem, nor did they go down
into Egypt.
The Death of Jesus Uncertain.—It has been stated
already that three of the evangelists assure us that Jesus
was crucified after the Pascha ; but one of them insists
that he was “ crucified, dead, and buried ” before that
feast was held. As they all profess to speak what they
did know, and some, at least, assure us they were eye
witnesses of the event, what are we to say ?
Mark tells us that he (Jesus) was crucified at nine
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
45
o’clock in the morning, and at twelve o’clock, or noon
day, an Egyptian darkness covered all the land for three
hours. This could not have been an eclipse, seeing it
was full moon. John tells us that Jesus wras not crucified,
but under examination at twelve o’clock, or mid-day. If
John is right, Mark must be wrong; for he could not
have been three hours on the cross, and there was no
miraculous darkness at the time.
Basilides (110-160) tells us that Christ was not
crucified, but that Simon of Cynene suffered in his
stead.
According to Irenseus, Jesus was about fifty when he
died; but, according to general belief, he was about
thirty-three. Irenaeus, however, seems to be supported
by the remark of the Jews: “Thou art not yet fifty
years old, and hast thou seen Abraham ?” Suppose the
latter to have been the age of Jesus at crucifixion, then,
according to Irenaeus, the crucifixion took place a.d. 50 ;
according to Luke, it took place a.d. 38; according to
Dionysius Exiguus, it was a.d. 33; according to Euse
bius, a.d. 31 ; according to Jerome and Scaliger, a.d. 30;
according to Anger, Bengel, Petavius, Winer, and Usher,
it was a.d. 29 ; according to Ewald, it was a.d. 28 ;
according to Idler, a.d. 23; according to Bunsen, a.d. 18;
and according to Matthew, a.d. 17. A difference hardly
consistent with historic accuracy.
Resurrection and Ascension Uncertain.—As the birth
and death are uncertain, so are the resurrection and
ascension. Matthew tells us it was a general belief
among the Jews, long after the crucifixion, that the dead
body was stolen out of the sepulchre during the night by
some of the disciples. The sepulchre being in a private
garden would render this more feasible; for no doubt
the master, his gardener, and others of his household,
would be allowed a freedom denied to strangers ; and
even soldiers and policemen can shut their eyes for a
consideration. You say it would be a capital offence.
Granted. But hundreds of examples can be quoted
where gaolers have connived at the escape of their
prisoners; and, in this case, all the high officers of
Jerusalem would look over the offence. As for Pilate,
we well know that he was completely under their thumb.
�46
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Nothing can be a greater proof of this than his giving
up Jesus to death after declaring in open court that he
could find no offence whatever in him. If it be said
that Jesus was seen alive after his crucifixion, the reply
is, Where is the proof that he ever died ? Pilate evidently
thought it most unlikely. He could not have been
fastened to the cross above two hours, according to the
Fourth Gospel; and we are told that criminals often lived
on a cross for several days. If Jesus only swooned,
then his appearance afterwards was by no means wonder
ful. Indubitably what appeared to the disciples was
flesh and blood; for it ate food, was palpable to the
touch, and in every respect resembled the man of
Nazareth so well known.
In regard to the ascension, Matthew omits all men
tion of it. The last twelve verses of Mark, in which it
is mentioned, are interpolated, and are marked as such
in the new version. John says nothing about it, so that
Luke is our only authority for the hypothesis, and the
Gospel of Luke is a mere compilation, voted into the
canonical Scriptures by only a single vote. Elijah’s
voyage through the air was a tale of Jewish mythology;
and the ascension of Jesus was not difficult of credibility.
The Jews believed that God and his angels, as well as
Satan and his imps, held free intercourse with man, so
that coming down from Heaven and coming up from
Hell were common occurrences ; but what is meant by
up and down is not so easy of explanation.
A-W Mentioned by Roman or Other Writers.—As
Judaea was a Roman province belonging to that of Syria,
and had a pro-consul of its own, it must have been filled
with Romans in all the upper walks of society. There
wTere the court and household of Pilate, a goodly army of
Roman soldiers with their officers, the collectors of the
tribute, and other officials almost without number, be
sides the constant intercourse on festival days and for
purposes of commerce. So that any events of unusual
occurrence would get noised abroad, and would spread
like wildfire.
There was no lack of authors in those days—Jewish,
Greek, and Roman, in every line of literature. In fact,
it was the Augustan age of letters. And never since
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
47
the foundation of Rome were authors so numerous—
dramatists, satirists, poets, gossip litterateurs, and so on.
If the wonderful things recorded in the Gospels had
really happened, they must have been known, they must
have been talked about, they must have been referred to,
by some of the literary gossips of the day. Miracles, like
feeding thousands of people with a few small loaves and
fishes, raising the dead to life again, ghosts walking out
of their tombs, miraculous darkness covering all the
land for several hours, earthquakes, mysterious voices
from the clouds, rising through the air into the clouds—
these things are so uncommon, so striking, they must
have formed topics of general conversation, and must
have found place in the literature of the day. It is in
credible that no one, except the four interested partisans,
should ever have referred to them. Yet the writers of
the first century are wholly silent about them. They do
not even mention the name of Jesus. Josephus was a
Jew who actually lived in the country where these things
are said to have occurred; but Josephus alludes not to
them, although he wrote a history of the times. Philo,
Pliny, Justus, etc., have not so much as named the name
of Jesus or of any one of his apostles. None of them
even hint at the marvellous works mentioned in the
Gospels. The omission is so striking, so demonstrative,
that something had to be done to supply it; and accord
ingly, in that uncritical age, when books were not broad
cast over the land as they are now, and forgeries, before
printing was invented, were easy, a purple patch, wholly
cut of character with the rest of the book, was foisted
into the manuscript copy of Josephus; and, if, indeed,
“The Annals of Tacitus” are not altogether a forgery,
a line or two was thrust into them also, as a sort of bythe-by, ten times more suspicious than absolute silence.
Perhaps there is no evidence so incontestable as such
forgeries as these, that the Gospel narratives are not
narratives of current events, but a sort of religious
romance of a much later date.
Of course, it will be said, how can the name of Christ
be accounted for, with such festivals as Christmas Day
and all the rites connected with the Christian religion,
if there is no foundation of truth in the Christian story ?
�48
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Well, we ourselves have the weekly festivals of Tuesday,
Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday; but who
believes in the gods Tuesco, Woden, Thor, Frega, or
Saturn ? We have the annual festivals of January and
March; but who believes in Janus or Mars ? The
Romans teemed with allusions to Romulus: streets were
named after him ; there were knights of Romulus, the
highest of the aristocracy ; there were colleges of Romulian priests; there were numerous festivals and rites
alluding to the supposititious founder; there were serious
histories, hymns, and popular songs ; in fact, Rome is
nothing without Romulus; yet Romulus was a mere
myth; his godfather and virgin mother were mere
myths; his ascent into Heaven is a mere myth ; his
being suckled by a wolf is a mere myth ; his foundation
of a city, his wonderful wars, and his civil institutions
are mere dreams of the imagination. Here, then, is our
answer, and I think it is unanswerable.
If Jesus was the Son of God, his Relationships were
indeed Strange.—We are told that Jesus of Nazareth
had Mary for his mother and the Holy Ghost for his
father, and, furthermore, that he was God, the equal of
God the Father, and that the three persons were insepar
ably one, both before the incarnation and after the
ascension. Assuming this to be true, where does it land
us ? Look :—
1. He must have been his own grandfather, his own
father, and his own son :—his own grandfather, seeing
he was one with God the Father; his own father, seeing
he was one with the Holy Ghost, and his own son,
being the son of God the Father.
2. He was his mother’s father or maker, his mother’s
husband, and his mother’s son :—his mother’s maker,
seeing that by him all things were made, and without
him nothing was made that is made; his mother’s
husband, seeing he is all one with the Holy Ghost; and
his mother’s son, seeing he was the son of Mary.
3. As God, no one could call him to account. As
man, he must be called to account like other men. As
judge, he must judge himself, and number himself with
the goats or sheep.
4. Being one with God, God was one with him. On
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
49
the cross God forsook him. Therefore, on the cross he
forsook himself. It is not easy for a man to jump out
of himself.
5. Being man and God, he was not man, like other
men. Being God and man, he was not God, like God
the Father and God the Spirit. He was, therefore,
neither one with God nor one with man. What, then,
was he ?
6. If, as he asserted, he could have avoided death, he
died of his own free will, and, therefore, was virtually
guilty of his own death. Look. If a man is thrown
into a river, and could swim ashore if he liked, but does
not choose to do so, he is guilty of felo de se, morally, if
not legally. And if Jesus could have saved his life if he
liked, but did not choose to do so, morally he was guilty
of his own death ; and so the Bible teaches, “ I lay
down my life of myself. I have power to lay it down
or not.” The case is not the same as that of a patriot
dying in battle, or a martyr dying for his faith-sake. A
patriot does not go into battle for the sake of dying, but
risks his life out of love for his country, and loses it. A
martyr does not believe for the sake of being burnt to
death, but suffers death rather than live a living lie. The
cases are not at all parallel. Jesus, we are told, went
into battle with prepense to die. He was a martyr for
the sake of being a martyr. A condition very different.
TW Fall, no Redemption.—However, when all is said,
we must remember that the whole story of Jesus, from
beginning to end, is inextricably connected with Eve and
the Forbidden Fruit. This myth has already been
alluded to in a previous chapter, but cannot wholly
be ignored in this connection.
No one can really
believe that extremely foolish and illogical story about
the Fall to be sober history. It is such a mass of
confusion and contradiction, such a Pelion upon Ossa
of injustice, that it will not bear the slightest examina
tion. A talking serpent chatting familiarly with a young
woman, as a gossip, is the first absurdity. Then the
serpent was no serpent at all, because it did not creep
on the ground till after the fall; and, if not a creeping
thing (serpens), it was no serpent. Nor was it, for it
was the Devil in masquerade. The Devil pretended to
�5°
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
be a serpent before there was such a reptile as a serpent,
and, because the Devil chose to assume this form and
fashion, the whole ophidian order were deprived of feet.
It is too ridiculous. Because the Devil assumed a false
character, the Devil was not punished, but serpents,
who had no more to do with it than the North Star.
Eve believed the lying fiend; and, therefore, you and I,
born thousands of years afterwards, are tainted with
original sin. It is monstrous. Six thousand years ago
a. man named Adam ate sour graspes; and, therefore,
your teeth and mine are set on edge. Because the Devil
deluded a young woman, therefore it was absolutely
necessary for God to become man that he might be put
to death. Why, how is it that God did not break the
neck of the lying fiend ? He was able to cast him out
of Heaven, and surely he might have flung him neckand-crop out of the garden. Had he no will to crush
sin in the bud ? Why did he let Satan drive Adam and
Eve out of Paradise, bring a flood of waters on the earth
to destroy it, drag God’s only and well-beloved son out
of Heaven to be nailed to the cross as a malefactor,
when, by a single word, he might have prevented all this
iniquity, misery, and death? It cannot be! No, it
cannot be ' It is too revolting, too absurd. Yet, if not
true—true every inch of it—the story of Jesus falls to
the ground. The two stories hang on one thread. If
one falls, both fall. Jesus may have lived, he may have
been the wisest and best of the sons of men; but, if
there was no Fall, there was no Redemption, and Church
“ orthodoxy ” is the grossest of all heterodoxies. There
is no middle path. If the tale of the talking serpent is
a myth—and it cannot be otherwise—the tale of the Re
demption is a myth also. If there was no Paradise Lost,
there was no Paradise Regained.
The Prevailing Opinion of the First Five Centuries
was “Arian"—-What is now called Arianism for the
sake of brevity was undoubtedly the prevailing faith of
the first four centuries; and the first three Gospels favour
this view of the “man Christ Jesus” far more than the
subsequent one maintained by Athanasius. The space
at my disposal is too short to enter upon a detailed proof
of this subject; but, to the best of my knowledge, it
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
51
has never been denied that the Church of Pella, presided
over first by James, and afterwards by Simon or Simeon,
was, to all intents and purposes, in sympathy with the
views afterwards set forth by the presbyter Arius.
The great contest between the manhood and divinity
of Jesus pervaded the third and fourth centuries, but
ran on, though less severely, for ages before and after
wards. Dr. Harold Browne tells us that the voice of the
Church is final on all points of discipline and doctrine.
Well, it may be so ; but the voice is most uncertain. In
360 the Council of Ariminum, convened by the Emperor
Constantius, condemned Arianism; but in 484 the
Council of Carthage confirmed the doctrines held by
Arius, and exiled all the bishops who entertained any
other religious views.
Before these two councils, the great Council of Nicaea,
in 325, had decreed Arius to be a “pernicious heretic,”
and put forth this loud protest: “ The Catholic and
Apostolic Church anathematises all who say that there
ever was a time when the Son did not exist.” And
it goes on to curse “ all and any who believe the Son
had no existence prior to his birth in Bethlehem, or that
he was created out of nothing, or that say he was
of another substance to the Father, or that he was
capable of change.” As, however, the father must be
prior to the son, I fear this “ voice ” is vox et praterea
nihil. And, as Jesus changed from God to a compound
of God and man, grew in grace as well as in stature, and
returned to Heaven an imponderable body, I cannot see
how any one is to escape the anathema maranatha of
Nicaea.
Notwithstanding these bellowings from Nicaea, the
Church of Constantinople dared to convene three
Councils (one in 336, another in 339, and a third in 360),
all of which gave the lie direct to the judgment of Nicaea,
and pronounced the views of Arius to be alone orthodox,
scriptural, and true. Which was the “ voice of the
Church”—the packed Council of Nicaea, called expressly
to condemn Arius, or the three subsequent Councils of
Constantinople ?
No doubt Carthage and Constantinople were infinitely
more important places than Nicaea in Asia Minor, and
�52
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED.
Rimini in Italy. They were the chief cities of the civi
lised world—the London and Berlin of the time. They
would command all the learning and scholarship of the
world. The voice of the Church, spoken at Nicsea and
Rimini, declared Arius to be a spawn of the Devil. The
voice of the Church, spoken at Carthage and Constan
tinople, declared him the expositor of truth. The former
repudiated the Arian bishops, the latter dismissed
Athanasius and his followers.
The contest still ran on. In 403 the Council of Arles
condemned Athanasius as “ a pestilent fellow,” no better
than Simon Magus, if indeed so good. Other Councils
followed, and swore that the voice of the Church uttered
at Arles was the voice of the “ father of lies.” As all
Councils were composed of Church dignitaries and leaders
of the laity, it is not a little perplexing to know which
is which; but of one thing we may be quite sure, that
the voice of truth is always one and the same: 11 Discute,
quod audias, omne ; quod credas, froba.”
The “Logici ” of Jesus.—We are constantly told that
the words spoken by Jesus were so wise, so beyond the
reach of human genius, that never man did speak, or
could speak, as he did, and, therefore, he must have
been divine. I candidly confess I cannot call to mind
a single sentence to justify this laudation.
I suppose the most characteristic “ logia ” were those
in the Sermon on the Mount; but how utterly impractic
able are many of those precepts; and, if carried out,
how utterly would society be subverted 1 The reference
to the “lilies of the field ” is very pretty; but the lesson
taught is practically absurd. I think it is Paul who
says : “ If any provide not for his own, he is worse than
an infidel;” but in the Sermon on the Mount it is:
“Take no thought of the morrow;” “Lay not up
treasures on earth.” Sufficient for the day are provisions
for the day. Fathers, do not lay up for your children ; do
not provide for their education and for placing them in
life. Mothers, lay up no store in your larders. Begin
each day with an empty purse and empty larder, like
sparrows and lilies; for you cannot make yourself an
inch taller by trying ever so hard. Very true ; but this
does not bear upon the question. You might just as
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
53
well say, Do not buy a loaf of bread for to-morrow, or
put a shilling in the saving’s bank, because you cannot
make a sun or moon, or add a cubit to an oa.k tree. It
is a non sequitur, and very foolish. God will provide,
says the preacher ; but he does not. Starving hundreds
is the proof. If man does not provide, there is no hope
for him. I do not think the provision of sparrows has
much to do with the question ; for it would apply to rats,
bugs, and all other vermin, the pests of the earth. How
far garbage is a provision by God for rats is a long ques
tion ; but I am quite sure all that is said about the
growth of the lilies will apply to nettles and poisonous
weeds; though perhaps it would not be so pastoral.to
say, Behold the choking weeds of a corn-field, which
smother the good seed ; God provided them with their
proper sustenance. Behold the vermin which annoy our
warehouses and devour our corn—the bugs, the fleas,
and the ticks—God provided them their food. This is
less pretty, but just as true.
See what a wretched fallacy is this thriftless teaching.
“ Go to the ant, and learn of him.” No, no, Solomon 1
Lay up no store at all. If this precept were acted on,
there could be no progress, no commerce, no little nestegg to help our children to settle in life. The world
would be a world of beggars, incapable of helping each
other. Would this banish care? If a mother knew
not how to provide the next meal——if a father had
neither house nor home, nor penny in his pocket, nor
means of living, would he be free from care ? I trow
not. He would be devoured with anxiety, worried to
death; paralysed in hope, without energy, without
stimulus to exertion, without motive of improvement.
A terrible, terrible world would this be then. It is bad
enough now; but it would be all workhouse then, with
no one to pay the piper.
Of the same impracticable character is that direction :
“ Sell all thou hast and give unto the poor, and thou
shalt have treasure in Heaven.” If so, Heaven is not
the award of faith, but the reward of alms-giving. Yet
I remember something is said about “ If I give all my
goods to feed the poor, it profiteth me nothing.” Io
carry out this direction would pauperise and paralyse
�54
THE old and new testament examined.
society. Of all the useless lumber that ever lived
hermits were the worst. What good did the pillar
saints do—standing on one foot on the top of a monu
ment for thirty or forty years ? What good did hermits
do by never washing their bodies or changing their linen
or by feeding on roots and garbage far from the sight of
man
Such foolery is a mere travesty of holiness
And I very much doubt whether their reward in Heaven
will equal that of John Howard and Mr. Peabody
I have instanced the unwisdom of the Nazarene in
these few directions ; but his whole teaching from begin
ning to end is wrong. It is intensely Jewish, and never
rises above an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth
Honesty is the best policy ” is the alpha and omega of
the Gospel teaching, if for honesty you substitute creu
Believe in Christ as the Messiah, and great
shall be your reward in Heaven. Holiness has the
promise of the life that now is and of that which is to
come. If you take up your cross now, you shall wear
a crown hereafter. There is not one word about the
dignity of morality, the manliness of benevolence the
self-reward of good action ; it is always policy, selfish
policy, never reaching beyond the little insignificant
circle of “ I myself I.”
. The Teaching of Jesus was that of a Jew.—“ Go not
mto the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the
Samaritans enter ye not ” was the direction of Jesus to
his seventy disciples. Can national exclusiveness go
further. “ I am not sent but to the lost sheep of the
house of Israel ” is a similar dictum. “ It is not meet
to take the children’s bread and cast it unto dogs.” I
maintain there is nothing like universality in such sen
tences as these—no large-heartedness. God is no
respecter of persons, but the equal father of all. It is
Jewish prejudice, Jewish exclusiveness. And even when
it is said, “ Go ye into all nations and teach the gospel
to every creature,” nothing more is meant than this:
Go wherever the Jews are scattered abroad, and tell the
Israel of God what I have taught you.
The Parables and Miracles Objectionable. —But I must
be brief. As the teaching of Jesus is most objection
able, many of his parables and “ miracles ” are not less
�THE NEW TESTAMENT.
55
so. The parable of the unjust steward is wretched
morality. The miracle of Cana of Galilee, and the
miracle of the devils driven into the swine, are quite
indefensible. That some fourteen firkins of strong wine
should be supplied to a family party, when all the guests
had “ well drunken,” would make the feast worse than a
Scotch orgie. Say there were fourteen guests, this would
give a firkin apiece. A firkin is nine gallons, or thirtysix quarts. Pretty well that for a sober party well soaked
already. Thirty-six pints of wine for Mary, and thirtysix for her son ! Quite enough, I fancy, for a temper
ance club. But, after all, the most objectionable of the
miracles is the raising of the dead. Take that of
Lazarus, for example, always flourished in our faces as
proof of proofs of the divinity of Christ, but, to my
thinking, a demonstration to the very contrary. Of
course Lazarus was a good man, for Jesus loved him
dearly; and, being such, would go to Paradise imme
diately after death. Was it the part of a benevolent
being to bring him from Paradise to earth again—from
the joys which know no ending to a vale of tears ? In
Paradise he was reaping the reward of the battle of life
well fought, the prize of his high calling; on earth he
was in the thick of the fight once more, and the race
was still to be run. There he could know no sickness ;
here sickness is the birthright of all. There death was
swallowed up in victory; here death is the wages of sin.
Was it the part of a God to call Lazarus from Heaven
to earth ? Jesus, we are told, knew what Heaven was,
and he knew what earth is—a place of grief, sorrow, and
disappointment. Was it the part of a God to bring the
angel from before the throne, to tear from his brow his
golden crown, pluck off his robe of righteousness, and
lay again upon him the cross ? Would you think that
man did a kind act who reduced a prince to the state of
a beggar; who drove him from palace to hovel; severed
him from the wise and good, to herd with fallen men ?
Would it be an act of Divine benevolence to change his
“ pleasures for evermore ” into want and misery ?
If a God, Jesus knew what Heaven is, and he knew
on earth that every man is “ a man of sorrow, acquainted
with grief.” He must have known that no unkinder act
�56
THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT EXAMINED,
could have been done than to call his friend from Para
dise to a sinful world, where the Devil goes about daily
seeking whom he may devour.
It was not only unspeakably unkind, it was infamously
unjust, to put Lazarus on his trial again. He had won
his crown, and ought to have been allowed to wear it;
he had finished his course, and ought not to have been
set another task. Suppose, in his second life, he had
proved a Judas or Barabbas—and truly the injustice
put upon him was enough to wean him from ever trust
ing again to the promises of God—suppose, I say, he
had turned out an outcast, what then ? No 1 no ! He
had changed the Church militant for the Church trium
phant, and had no right to be degraded to the rank and
file again. It was unthinking, cruel, unjust. Such a
God could be no God at all.
A miracle of this sort might have served to display
the power of Jesus might gratify his vanity and love of
popular applause might astound a Jewish mob; but
could only make the thoughtful grieve, and drive those
who trusted in the word of God to utter infidelity.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The subject of the four gospels
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Julian
Propagandist Press Committee
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: [43]-56 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from Cooke, Bill. The blasphemy depot (RPA 2003), Appx. 1. 'Julian' is the pseudonym of Ebenezer Cobham Brewer (1810-1897). Issued for the Propagandist Press Committee. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1891]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N421
Subject
The topic of the resource
Bible
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The subject of the four gospels), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Bible. N.T. Gospels
Jesus Christ
NSS