diff options
| author | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-03 05:46:30 -0800 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | nfenwick <nfenwick@pglaf.org> | 2025-03-03 05:46:30 -0800 |
| commit | 81d1a8bb6940ca255f564f40c57d876d12331d03 (patch) | |
| tree | 6113c98932707f6f6a3fe4352de4fa17bd0de541 /39266.txt | |
| parent | 011765dd239849dbab63076f66d5cede32a473c4 (diff) | |
Diffstat (limited to '39266.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | 39266.txt | 10613 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 10613 deletions
diff --git a/39266.txt b/39266.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0d00a62..0000000 --- a/39266.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,10613 +0,0 @@ - THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS - - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with almost -no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it -under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this -eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Title: Theological Essays - -Author: Charles Bradlaugh - -Release Date: March 25, 2012 [EBook #39266] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: US-ASCII - - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS*** - - - - -Produced by David Widger. - - - - - *THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS* - - - _By_ - - *Charles Bradlaugh* - - - _London_ - - _1895_ - - - - -CONTENTS - - - HERESY: ITS UTILITY AND MORALITY - Chapter I. Introductory - Chapter II. The Sixteenth Century - Chapter III. The Seventeenth Century - Chapter IV. The Eighteenth Century - HUMANITY'S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF - SUPERNATURAL AND RATIONAL MORALITY - HAS MAN A SOUL? - IS THERE A GOD - A PLEA FOR ATHEISM - A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE DEVIL - WERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS? - NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM - NEW LIFE OF JACOB - NEW LIFE OF MOSES - NEW LIFE OF DAVID - A NEW LIFE OF JONAH - WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? - WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? - THE TWELVE APOSTLES - THE ATONEMENT - WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? - MR. GLADSTONE IN REPLY TO COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY - A FEW WORDS ON THE CHRISTIANS' CREED - - - - -HERESY: ITS UTILITY AND MORALITY - - - - -Chapter I. Introductory - - -WHAT is heresy that it should be so heavily punished? Why is it that -society will condone many offences, pardon many vicious practices, and -yet have such scant mercy for the open heretic, who is treated as though -he were some horrid monster to be feared, hated, and, if possible, -exterminated? Most religionists, instead of endeavoring with kindly -thought to provide some solution for the difficulties propounded by -their heretical brethren, indiscriminately confound all inquirers in one -common category of censure; their views are dismissed with ridicule as -sophistical and fallacious, abused as infinitely dangerous, themselves -denounced as heretics and infidels, and libelled as scoffers and -Atheists. With some religionists all heretics are Atheists. With the -Pope of Rome, Garibaldi and Mazzini were Atheists. With the Religious -Tract Society, Voltaire and Paine were Atheists. Yet in none of the -above-named cases is the allegation true. Voltaire and Paine were -heretics, but both were Theists. Garibaldi and Mazzini were heretics, -but neither of them was an Atheist, though the latter had given color to -the description by accepting the presidency of an Atheistical society. -With few exceptions, the heretics of one generation become the revered -saints of a period less than twenty generations later. Lord Bacon, in -his own age, was charged with Atheism, Sir Isaac Newton with -Socinianism, the famous Tillotson was actually charged with Atheism, and -Dr. Burnet wrote vigorously against the commonly received traditions of -the fall and deluge. There are but few men of the past of whom the -church boasts to-day, who have not at some time been pointed at as -heretics by orthodox antagonists excited by party rancor. Heresy is in -itself neither Atheism nor Theism, neither the rejection of the Church -of Rome, nor of Canterbury, nor of Constantinople; heresy is not -necessarily of any-ist or-ism. The heretic is one who has selected his -own opinions, or whose opinions are the result of some mental effort; -and he differs from others who are orthodox in this:--they hold opinions -which are often only the bequest of an earlier generation -unquestioningly accepted; he has escaped from the customary grooves of -conventional acquiescence, and sought truth outside the channels -sanctified by habit. - -Men and women who are orthodox are generally so for the same reason that -they are English or French--they were born in England or France, and -cannot help the good or ill fortune of their birthplace. Their orthodoxy -is no higher virtue than their nationality. Men are good and true of -every nation and of every faith; but there are more good and true men in -nations where civilisation has made progress, and amongst faiths which -have been modified by high humanising influences. Men are good not -because of their orthodoxy, but in spite of it; their goodness is the -outgrowth of their humanity, not of their orthodoxy. Heresy is necessary -to progress; heresy in religion always precedes endeavor for political -freedom. You cannot have effectual political progress without -wide-spread heretical thought. Every grand political change in which the -people have played an important part has been preceded by the -popularisation of heresy in the immediately earlier generations. - -Fortunately, ignorant men cannot be real heretics, so that education -must be hand-maiden to heresy. Ignorance and superstition are twin -sisters. Belief too often means nothing more than prostration of the -intellect on the threshold of the unknown. Heresy is the pioneer, erect -and manly, striding over the forbidden line in his search for truth. -Heterodoxy develops the intellect, orthodoxy smothers it. Heresy is the -star twinkle in the night, orthodoxy the cloud which hides this faint -gleam of light from the weary travellers on life's encumbered pathway. -Orthodoxy was well exemplified in the dark middle ages, when the mass of -men and women believed much and knew little, when miracles were common -and schools were rare, and when the monasteries on the hill tops held -the literature of Europe. Heresy speaks for itself in this nineteenth -century, with the gas and electric light, with cheap newspapers, with a -thousand lecture rooms, with innumerable libraries, and at least a -majority of the people able to read the thoughts the dead have left, as -well as to listen to the words the living utter. - -The word heretic ought to be a term of honor; for honest, clearly -uttered heresy is always virtuous, and this whether truth or error; yet -it is not difficult to understand how the charge of heresy has been -generally used as a means of exciting bad feeling. The Greek word -[--Greek--] which is in fact our word heresy, signifies simply selection -or choice. The heretic philosopher was the one who had searched and -found, who, not content with the beaten paths, had selected a new road, -chosen a new fashion of travelling in the march for that happiness all -human-kind are seeking. - -Heretics are usually called "infidels," but no word could be more -unfairly applied, if by it is meant anything more than that the heretic -does not conform to the State faith. If it meant those who do not -profess the faith, then there would be no objection, but it is more -often used of those who are unfaithful, and then it is generally a -libel. Mahomedans and Christians both call Jews infidels, and Mahomedans -and Christians call each other infidels. Each religionist is thus an -infidel to all sects but his own; there is but one degree of heresy -between him and the heretic who rejects all churches. Each ordinary -orthodox man is a heretic to every religion in the world except one, but -he is heretic from the accident of birth without the virtue of true -heresy. - -In our own country heresy is not confined to the extreme platform -adopted as a standing-point by such a man as myself. It is rife even in -the state-sustained Church of England, and to show this one does not -need to be content with such illustrations as are afforded by the -Essayists and Reviewers, who discover the sources of the world's -education rather in Greece and Italy than in Judea; who reject the -alleged prophecies as evidence of the Messianic character of Jesus; who -admit that in nature and from nature, by science and by reason, we -neither have, nor can possibly have, any evidence of a deity working -miracles; but declare that for that we must go out of nature and beyond -science, and in effect avow that Gospel miracles are always _objects,_ -not _evidences_, of faith; who deny the necessity of faith in Jesus as -savior to peoples who could never have such faith; and who reject the -notion that all mankind are individually involved in the curse and -perdition of Adam's sin; or even by the Rev. Charles Voysey, who -declines to preach "the God of the Bible," and who will not teach that -every word of the Old and New Testament is the word of God; or by the -Rev, Dunbar Heath, who in defiance of the Bible doctrine, that man has -only existed on the earth about 6,000 years, teaches that unnumbered -chiliads have passed away since the human family can be traced as -nations on our earth; or by Bishop Colenso, who in his impeachment of -the Pentateuch, his denial of the literal truth of the narratives of the -creation, fall, and deluge, actually impugns the whole scheme of -Christianity (if the foundation be false, the superstructure cannot be -true); or by the Rev. Baden Powell, who declared "that the whole tenor -of geology is in entire contradiction to the cosmogony delivered from -Mount Sinai," and who denied a "local heaven above and a local hell -beneath the earth;" or by the Rev. Dr. Giles, who, not content with -preceding Dr. Colenso in his assaults on the text of the Pentateuch, -also wrote as vigorously against the text of the New Testament; or by -the Rev. Dr. Wall, who, unsatisfied with arguments against the -admittedly incorrect authorised translation of the Bible, actually wrote -to prove that a new and corrected Hebrew text was necessary, the Hebrew -itself being corrupt; or by the Rev. Dr. Irons, who teaches that not -only are the Gospel writers unknown, but that the very language in which -Jesus taught is yet to be discovered, who declares that prior to the -Ezraic period the literal history of the Old Testament is lost, who does -not find the Trinity taught in Scripture, and who declares that the -Gospel does not teach the doctrine of the Atonement; or by the late -Archbishop Whately, to whom is attributed a Latin pamphlet raising -strong objections against the truth of the alleged confusion of tongues -at Babel. - -We may fairly allege, that amongst thinking clergymen of the Church of -England, heresy is the rule and not the exception. So soon as a minister -begins to preach sermons which he does not buy ready -lithographed-sermons which are the work of his brain--so soon heresy -more or less buds out, now in the rejection of some church doctrine or -article of minor importance, now in some bold declaration at variance -with major and more essential tenets. Even Bishop Watson, so famous for -his Bible Apology, declared that the church articles and creeds were not -binding on any man. "They may be true, they may be false," he wrote. -To-day scores of Church of England clergymen openly protest against, or -groan in silence under the enforced subscription of Thirty-nine -unbelievable Articles. Sir William Hamilton declares that the heads of -Colleges at Oxford well knew that the man preparing for the Church "will -subscribe Thirty-nine Articles which he cannot believe, and swears to do -and to have done a hundred articles which he cannot or does not -perform." - -In scientific circles the heresy of the most efficient members is -startlingly apparent. Against the late Anthropological Society charges -of Atheism were freely levelled; and although such a charge does not -seem to be justified by any reports of their meetings, or by their -printed publications, it is clear that not only out of doors, but even -amongst their own circle, it was felt that their researches conflicted -seriously with the Hebrew writ. The Society was preached against and -prayed against until it collapsed; and yet it was simply a society for -discovering everything possible about man, prehistoric as well as -modern. It had, however, an unpardonable vice in the eyes of the -orthodox--it encouraged the utterance of facts without regard to their -effect on faiths. - -The Ethnological Society is kindred to the last-named in many of its -objects, and hence some of its most active members have been direct -assailants of the Hebrew Chronology, which limits man's existence to the -short space of 6,000 years; they have been deniers of the origin of the -human race from one pair, of the confusion of tongues at Babel, and of -the reduction of the human race to one family by the Noachian deluge. - -Geological science has a crowd of heretics amongst its professors, men -who deny the sudden origin of fauna and flora; who trace the gradual -development of the vegetable and animal kingdoms through vast periods of -time; and who find no resting place in a beginning of existence, but are -obliged to halt in face of a measureless past, inconceivable in its -grandeur. Geology, to quote the words of Dr. Kalisch, declares "the -utter impossibility of a creation of even the earth alone in six days." -Mr. Goodwin says in the "Essays and Reviews:" "The school-books of the -present day, while they teach the child that the earth moves, yet assure -him that it is a little less than six thousand years old, and that it -was made in six days. On the other hand, geologists of all religious -creeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense series of -years--to be counted by millions rather than by thousands; and that -indubitably more than six days elapsed from its first creation to the -appearance of man upon its surface." - -Mr. Richard Proctor says: "It has been shown that had past geological -changes in the earth taken place at the same rate as those which are now -in progress, one hundred millions of years at the very least would have -been required to produce those effects which have actually been -produced, we find, since the earth's surface was fit to be the abode of -life. But recently it has been pointed out, correctly in all -probability, that under the greater tide-raising power of the moon in -past ages, these changes would have taken place more rapidly. As, -however, certainly ten millions of years, and probably a much longer -time, must have elapsed since the moon was at that favorable distance -for raising tides, we are by no means enabled, as some well-meaning but -mistaken persons have imagined, to reduce the life-bearing stage of the -earth from a duration of a hundred millions of years to a minute -fraction of such a period. The short life, but exceedingly lively one, -which they desire to see established by geological or astronomical -reasoning, never can be demonstrated. At the very least we must assign -ten millions of years to the life-bearing stage of the earth's -existence." - -Astronomy has in the ranks of its professors many of its most able minds -who do not believe in the sun and moon as two great lights, who cannot -accept the myriad stars as fixed in the firmament solely to give light -upon the earth, who refuse to believe in the heaven as a fixed firmament -to divide the waters above from the waters beneath, who cannot by their -telescopes discover the local heaven above or the local hell beneath, -although their science marks each faint nebulosity crossing, or crossed, -by the range of the watcher's vision. To quote again from Mr. -Goodwin:--"On the revival of science in the sixteenth century, some of -the earliest conclusions at which philosophers arrived, were found to be -at variance with popular and long established belief. The Ptolemaic -system of astronomy, which had then full possession of the minds of men, -contemplated the whole visible universe from the earth as the immovable -centre of things. Copernicus changed the point of view, and placing the -beholder in the sun, at once reduced the earth to an inconspicuous -globule, a merely subordinate member of a family of planets, which the -terrestrials had, until then, fondly imagined to be but pendants and -ornaments of their own habitation. The Church, naturally, took a lively -interest in the disputes which arose between the philosophers of the new -school, and those who adhered to the old doctrines, inasmuch as the -Hebrew records, the basis of religious faith, manifestly countenanced -the opinion of the earth's immobility, and certain other views of the -universe, very incompatible with those propounded by Copernicus. Hence -arose the official proceedings against Galileo, in consequence of which -he submitted to sign his celebrated recantation, acknowledging that 'the -proposition that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable from -its place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical, -because it is expressly contrary to the Scripture;' and that 'the -proposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor -immovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is absurd, -philosophically false, and at least erroneous in faith.'" - -Why is it that society is so severe on heresy? Three hundred years ago -it burned heretics, till thirty years ago it sent them to jail; even in -England and America to-day it is content to harass, annoy, and slander -them. In the United States a candidate for the Governorship of a State, -although otherwise admittedly eligible, was assailed bitterly for his -suspected Socinianism. Sir Sidney Waterlow, standing for a Scotch seat, -was sharply catechised as to when he had last been inside a Unitarian -Chapel, and only saved his seat by not too boldly avowing his opinions. -Lord Amberley, who was "unwise" enough to be honest in some of his -answers, did not obtain his seat for South Devon in consequence of the -suspicion of heresy excited against him. It was chiefly to the _odium -theologicum_ that John Stuart Mill attributed his rejection at -Westminster. - -During the past few years we have had an attempt to revive the old -persecuting spirit. Atheism has been held sufficient ground for -depriving Mrs. Besant of the custody of her infant daughter. Heretical -views were enough to cancel the appointment made by Lord Amberley for -the guardianship of his children. The Blasphemy Laws have been once more -put in force in different parts of England, and the Conservative party -boast that they have been united in their effort to prevent an Atheist -from exercising his political rights. - -Sir William Drummond says: "Early associations are generally the -strongest in the human mind, and what we have been taught to credit as -children we are seldom disposed to question as men. Called away from -speculative inquiries by the common business of life, men in general -possess neither the inclination, nor the leisure to examine _what_ they -believe or _why_ they believe. A powerful prejudice remains in the mind; -insures conviction without the trouble of thinking; and repels doubt -without the aid or authority of reason. The multitude then is not very -likely to applaud an author, who calls upon it to consider what it had -hitherto neglected, and to stop where it had been accustomed to pass on. -It may also happen that there is a learned and formidable body, which, -having given its general sanction to the literal interpretation of the -Holy Scriptures, may be offended at the presumption of an unhallowed -layman, who ventures to hold that the language of those Scriptures is -often symbolical and allegorical, even in passages which both the Church -and the Synagogue consider as nothing else than a plain statement of -fact. A writer who had sufficient boldness to encounter such obstacles, -and to make an appeal to the public, would only expose himself to the -invectives of offended bigotry, and to the misrepresentations of -interested malice. The press would be made to ring with declamations -against him, and neither learning, nor argument, nor reason, nor -moderation on his side, would protect him from the literary -assassination which awaited him. In vain would he put on the -heaven-tempered panoply of truth. The weapons which could neither pierce -his buckler nor break his casque, might be made to pass with envenomed -points through the joints of his armor. Every trivial error which he -might commit would be magnified into a flagrant fault; and every -insignificant mistake into which he might fall would be represented by -the bigoted, or by the hireling critics of the day as an ignorant, or as -a perverse deviation from the truth." - -Both by the Statute Law and Common Law, heresy is punishable, and many -are punished for it even in the second half of the nineteenth century. -Besides open persecution, there is the constant, unceasing, paltry, -petty persecuting spirit which refuses to trade with the heretic; which -declines to eat with him; which will not employ him; which feels -justified in slandering him; which seeks to set his wife's mind against -him, and to take away the affection of his children from him. - - - - -Chapter II. The Sixteenth Century - - -IT requires a more practised pen than mine to even faintly sketch the -progress of heresy during the past three centuries, but I trust to give -the reader an idea of its rapid growth and wide extension during the -period in which, aided by the printing press, heresy has made the -majority of its converts amongst the mass of the people. In earlier -times heretics were not only few, but they talked to the few, and wrote -to the few, in the language of the few. It is only during the last -hundred years that the greatest men have sought to make heresy "vulgar;" -that is, to make it common. One of our leading scientific men, about -fifteen years ago, admitted that he had been reproved by some of his -more orthodox friends, for not confining to the Latin language such of -his geological opinions as were supposed to be most dangerous to the -Hebrew records. The starting-point of the real era of popular heresy may -be placed at the early part of the sixteenth century, when the memories -of Huss and Ziska (who had really inoculated the mass with some spirit -of heretical resistance a century before) aided Luther in resisting -Rome. - -Martin Luther, born at Eisleben in Saxony, in 1483, was one of the -heretics who sought popular endorsement for his heresy, and who -following the example of the Ulrich [Zwingli], of Zurich, preached to -the people in rough plain words. While others were limited to Latin, he -rang out in plain German his opposition to Tetzel and his protectors. -Martin Luther is spoken of by orthodox Protestants as if he were a saint -without blemish in his faith. Yet in justification of my ranking him -amongst the heretics of the sixteenth century, it will be sufficient to -mention that he regarded "the books of the Kings as more worthy of -credit than the books of the Chronicles," that he wrote as -follows:--"The book of Esdras I toss into the Elbe." "I am so an enemy -to the book of Esther I would it did not exist." "Job spake not -therefore as it stands written in his book." "It, is a sheer _argumentum -fabulae_." "The book of the Proverbs of Solomon has been pieced together -by others." Of Ecclesiastes "there is too much of broken matter in it; -it has neither boots nor spurs, but rides only in socks." "Isaiah hath -borrowed his whole art and knowledge from David." "The history of Jonah -is so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible." "The Epistle to the -Hebrews is not by St. Paul, nor indeed by any Apostle." "The Epistle of -James I account the writing of no Apostle," and it "is truly an Epistle -of straw." The Epistle of Jude "allegeth sayings or stories which have -no place in Scripture." "Of Revelation I can discover no trace that it -is established by the Holy Spirit." If Martin Luther were alive to-day, -the Established Church of England, which pretends to revere him, would -prosecute him in the English Ecclesiastical Courts if he ventured to -repeat the foregoing phrases from her pulpits. What would Christian -writers now say of the following passage, which occurs with reference to -Melancthon, whom Luther boasts that he raised miraculously from the -dead? "Melancthon," says Sir William Hamilton, to whose essay I am -indebted for the extracts here given, "had fallen ill at Weimar from -contrition and fear for the part he had been led to take in the -Landgrave's polygamy: his life was even in danger." "Then and there," -said Luther, "I made our Lord God to smart for it. For I threw down the -sack before the door, and rubbed his ears with all his promises of -hearing prayer, which I knew how to recapitulate from Holy Writ, so that -he could not but hearken to me, should I ever again place any reliance -on his promises." Martin Luther, with his absolute denial of free-will, -and with his double code of morality for princes and peasants--easy for -one and harsh for the other--may be fairly left now with those who -desire to vaunt his orthodoxy; here his name is used to illustrate the -popular impetus given to nonconformity by his quarrel with the papal -authorities. Luther protested against the Romish Church, but established -by the very fact the right for some more advanced man than Doctor Martin -Luther to protest in turn against the Lutheran Church. The only -consistent church in Christendom is the Romish Church, for it claims the -right to think for all its followers. The whole of the Protestant -Churches are inconsistent, for they claim the right to think and judge -against Rome, but deny extremer Nonconformists the right to think and -judge against themselves. Goethe, says Froude, declares that Luther -threw back the intellectual progress of mankind by using the passions of -the multitude to decide subjects which should have been left to the -learned. But at least some of the multitude once having their ears -fairly opened, listened to more than the appeal to their passions, and -examined for themselves propositions which otherwise they would have -accepted or rejected from habit and without inquiry. Martin Luther's -public discussions with pen and tongue, in Wittemberg, Augsburg, and -Lichtenburg, and the protest he encouraged against Rome, were the -commencement of a vigorous controversy, in which the public (who heard -for the first time sharp controversial sermons preached publicly in the -various pulpits by Lutheran preachers on free-will and necessity, -election and predestination, etc.) began to take real part and interest -which is still going on, and will in fact never end until the unholy -alliance of Church and State is everywhere annulled, and each religion -is left to sustain itself by its own truth, or to fall from its own -weakness, no man being molested under the law on account of his opinions -on religious matters. While Luther undoubtedly gave an impetus to the -growth of Rationalism by his own appeal to reason and his reliance on -reason for himself, it is not true that he contended for the right of -general freedom of inquiry, nor would he have left unlimited the -privileges of individual judgment for others. He could be furious in his -denunciations of reason when a freer thinker than himself dared to use -it against his superstitions. It is somewhat remarkable that while on -the one hand one man, Luther, was detaching from the Church of Rome a -large number of minds, another man, Loyola, was about the same time -engaged in founding that powerful society (the Society of Jesuits), -which has done so much to check free inquiry and maintain the priestly -domination over the human intellect. That which Luther commenced in -Germany roughly, inefficiently, and perhaps more from personal feeling -for the privileges of the special order to which he belonged than from -desire for popular progress, was aided in its permanent effect in -England by Bacon, in France by Montaigne and Descartes, and in Italy by -Bruno. - -Francis Bacon, Lord Verulam, was born on the 22nd January, 1561, and -died 1626. His mother, Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, was a woman -of high education, and certainly with some inclinations favorable to -Freethought, for she had herself translated into English some of the -sermons on fate and free-will of Bernard Ochino, or Bernardin Ochinus, -an Italian Reforming Heretic, alike repudiated by the powers at Rome, -Geneva, Wittenberg, and Zurich. Ochino, in his famous disquisition -"touching the freedom or bondage of the human will, and the -foreknowledge, predestination, and liberty of God," after discussing, -with great acuteness, and from different points of view, these important -topics, comes to the conclusion that there is no outlet to the mazes of -thought in which the honest speculator plunges in the endeavor to solve -these problems. Although, like other writers of that and earlier -periods, many of Bacon's works were published in Latin, he wrote and -published also in English, and if I am right in numbering him as one of -the heretics of the sixteenth century, he must be also counted a vulgar -heretic--i.e., one who wrote in the vulgar tongue, who preached his -heresy in the language which the mass understood. Lewes says: "Bacon and -Descartes are generally recognised as the Fathers of Modern Philosophy, -although they themselves were carried along by the rapidly-swelling -current of their age, then decisively setting in the direction of -science. It is their glory to have seen visions of the coming greatness, -to have expressed in terms of splendid power the thoughts which were -dimly stirring the age, and to have sanctioned the new movement by their -authoritative genius." Bacon was the populariser of that method of -reasoning known as the inductive, that method which seeks to trace back -from the phenomena of the moment to the eternal noumenon or -noumena--from the conditioned to the absolute. Nearly two thousand years -before, the same method had been taught by Aristotle in opposition to -Plato, and probably long thousands of years before the grand Greek, -pre-historic schoolmen had used the method; it is natural to the human -mind. The Stagirite was the founder of a school, Bacon the teacher and -populariser for a nation. Aristotle's Greek was known to few, Bacon's -eloquent English opened out the subject to the many whom he impregnated -with his own confidence in the grand progressiveness of human thought. -Lewes says: "The spirit of his philosophy was antagonistic to theology, -for it was a spirit of doubt and search; and its search was for visible -and tangible results." Bacon himself, in his essay on Superstition, -says: "Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, -to laws, to reputation, all which may be guides to an outward moral -virtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these, -and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men: therefore Atheism -did never perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as -looking no further; and we see the times inclined to Atheism, as the -time of Augustus Caesar, were civil times; but superstition hath been -the confusion of many states, and bringeth in a new _primum mobile_ (the -first motive cause), that ravisheth all the spheres of government." It -is true that he also wrote against Atheism, and this in strong language, -but his philosophy was not used for the purpose of proving theological -propositions. He said: "True philosophy is that which is the faithful -echo of the voice of the world, which is written in some sort under the -dictation of things, which adds nothing of itself, which is only the -rebound, the reflexion of reality." It has been well said that the words -"Utility and Progress" give the keynotes of Bacon's teachings. With one -other extract we leave his writings. "Crafty men," he says, "contemn -studies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them; for they teach -not their own use; but that is a wisdom without them, and above them, -won by observation. Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe -and take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and -consider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some -few to be chewed and digested. Reading maketh a full man; conference a -ready man; and writing an exact man; and therefore, if a man write -little, he need have a great memory; if he confer little, he need have a -present wit; and if he read little, he had need have much cunning, to -seem to know that he doth not. Histories make men wise; poets witty; the -mathematicis subtle; natural philosophy deep; moral, grave; logic and -rhetoric, able to contend." He was the father of experimental -philosophy. In one of his suggestions as to the force of attraction of -gravitation may be found the first aid to Sir Isaac Newton's later -demonstrations on this head; another of his suggestions, worked out by -Torricelli, ended in demonstrating the weight of the atmosphere. But to -the method he so popularised may be attributed the grandest discoveries -of modern times. It is to be deplored that the memory of his moral -weakness should remain to spoil the praise of his grand intellect. - -Lord Macaulay, in the _Edinburgh Review_, after contrasting at some -length the philosophy of Plato with that of Bacon, said:--"To sum up the -whole: we should say that the aim of the Platonic philosophy was to -exalt man into a god. The aim of the Baconian philosophy was to provide -man with what he requires while he continues to be man. The aim of the -Platonic philosophy was to raise us far above vulgar wants. The aim of -the Baconian philosophy was to supply our vulgar wants. The former aim -was noble; but the latter was attainable. Plato drew a good bow; but, -like Acestes in Virgil, he aimed at the stars; and therefore, though -there was no want of strength or skill, the shot was thrown away. - -His arrow was indeed followed by a track of dazzling radiance, but it -struck nothing. Bacon fixed his eye on a mark which was placed on the -earth and within bowshot, and hit it in the white. The philosophy of -Plato began in words and ended in words--noble words indeed--words such -as were to be expected from the finest of human intellects exercising -boundless dominion over the finest of human languages. The philosophy of -Bacon began in observations and ended in arts. - -In France the political heresy of Jean Bodin--who challenged the divine -right of rulers; who proclaimed the right of resistance against -oppressive decrees of monarchs; who had words of laudation for -tyranicide, and yet had no conception that the multitude were entitled -to use political power, but on the contrary wrote against them--was very -imperfect, the conception of individual right was confounded in the -habit of obedience to monarchical authority. Bodin is classed by Mosheim -amongst the writers who sowed the seeds of scepticism in France; but -although he was far from an orthodox man, it is doubtful if Bodin ever -intended his views to be shared beyond the class to which he belonged. -To the partial glimpse of individual right in the works of Bodin add the -doctrine of political fraternity taught by La Boetie, and then this -political heresy becomes dangerous in becoming popular. - -The most decided heretic and doubter of the sixteenth century was one -Santhez, by birth a Portuguese, and practising as a physician at -Toulouse; but the impetus which ultimately led to the spread and -popularity of sceptical opinions in relation to politics and theology, -is chiefly due to the satirical romances of Rabelais and the essays of -Montaigne. "What Rabelais was to the supporters of theology," says -Buckle, "that was Montaigne to the theology itself. The writings of -Rabelais were only directed against the clergy, but the writings of -Montaigne were directed against the system of which the clergy were the -offspring." - -Montaigne was born at Bordeaux 1533, died 1592. Louis Blanc says of his -words: "Et ce ne sont pas simples discours d'un philosophe a des -philosophes. Montaigne s'adresse a tous." Montaigne's words were not -those of a philosopher talking only to his own order, he addressed -himself to mankind at large, and he wrote in language the majority could -easily comprehend. Voltaire points out that Montaigne as a philosopher -was the exception in France to his class; he having succeeded in -escaping that persecution which fell so heavily on others. Montaigne's -thoughts were like sharp instruments scattered broadcast, and intended -for the destruction of many of the old social and conventional bonds; he -was the advocate of individualism, and placed each man as above society, -rather than society as more important than each man. Montaigne mocked -the reasoners who contradicted each other, and derided that fallibility -of mind which regarded the opinion of the moment as infallibly true, and -which was yet always temporarily changed by an attack of fever or a -draught of strong drink, and often permanently modified by some new -discovery. Less fortunate than Montaigne, Godfrey a Valle was burned for -heresy in Paris in 1572, his chief offence having been that of issuing a -work entitled "De Arte Nihil Credenti." - -Heresy thus championed in France, Germany, and England, had in Italy its -sixteenth century soldiers in Pomponatius of Mantua, Giordano Bruno, and -Telesio, both of Naples, and in Campa-nella of Calabria, a gallant band, -who were nearly all met with the cry of "Atheist," and were either -answered with exile, the prison, or the faggot. - -Pomponatius, who was born 1486 and died 1525, wrote a treatise on the -Soul, which was so much deemed an attack on the doctrine of immortality -despite a profession of reverence for the dogmas of the Church, that the -work was publicly burned at Venice, a special bull of Leo X being -directed against the doctrine. - -Bernard Telesio was born at Naples in 1508, and founded there a school -in which mathematics and philosophy were given the first place. During -his lifetime he had the good fortune to escape persecution, but after -his death his works were proscribed by the Church. Telesio was chiefly -useful in educating the minds of some of the Neapolitans for more -advanced thinking than his own. - -This was well illustrated in the case of Thomas Campanella, born 1568, -who, attracted by the teachings of Telesio, wrote vigorously against the -old schoolmen and in favor of the new philosophy. Despite an affected -reverence for the Church of Rome, Campanella spent twenty-seven years of -his life in prison. Campa-nella has been, as is usually the case with -eminent writers, charged with Atheism, but there seems to be no fair -foundation for the charge. He was a true heretic, for he not only -opposed Aristotle, but even his own teacher Telesio. None of these men, -however, yet strove to reach the people, they wrote to and of one -another, not to or of the masses. It is said that Campanella was fifty -times arrested and seven times tortured for his heresy. - -One Andrew de Bena, a profound scholar and eminent preacher of the -Church of Rome, carried away by the spirit of the time, came out into -the reformed party; but his mind once set free from the old trammels, -found no rest in Luther's narrow church, and a poetic Pantheism was the -result. - -Jerome Cardan, a mathematician of considerable ability, born at Pavia -1501, has been fiercely accused of Atheism. His chief offence seems to -have been rather in an opposite direction; astrology was with him a -favorite subject. While the strange views put forward in some of his -works served good purpose by provoking inquiry, we can hardly class -Cardan otherwise than as a man whose undoubted genius and erudition were -more than counterbalanced by his excessively superstitious folly. - -Giordano Bruno was born near Naples about 1550. He was burned at Rome -for heresy on the 17th February, 1600. Bruno was burned for alleged -Atheism, but appears rather to have been a Pantheist. His most prominent -avowal of heresy was the disbelief in eternal torment and rejection of -the common orthodox ideas of the devil. He wrote chiefly in Italian, his -vulgar tongue, and thus effectively aided the grand march of heresy by -familiarising the eyes of the people with newer and truer forms of -thought. Bruno used the tongue as fluently as the pen. He spoke in Italy -until he had roused an opposition rendering flight the only possible -escape from death. At Geneva he found no resting-place, the fierce -spirit of [Zwingli] and Calvin was there too mighty; at Paris he might -have found favor with the King, and at the Sorbonne, but he refused to -attend mass, and delivered a series of popular lectures, which won many -admirers; from Paris he went to England, where we find him publicly -debating at Oxford and lecturing on theology, until he excited an -antagonism which induced his return to Paris, where he actually publicly -discussed for three days some of the grand problems of existence. Paris -orthodoxy could not permit his onslaughts on established opinions, and -this time it was to Germany Bruno turned for hospitality; where, after -visiting many of the different states, lecturing freely and with general -success, he drew upon himself a sentence of excommunication at -Helmstadt. At last he returned to Italy and spoke at Padua, but had at -once to fly thence from the Inquisition; at Venice he found a -resting-place in prison, whence after six years of dungeon, and after -the tender mercy of the rack, he was led out to receive the final -refutation of the faggot. There is a grand heroism in the manner in -which he received his sentence and bore his fiery punishment. No cry of -despair, no prayer for escape, no flinching at the moment of death. -Bruno's martyrdom may favorably contrast with the highest example -Christianity gives us. - -It was in the latter half of the sixteenth century, that Unitarianism or -Socinianism assumed a front rank position in Europe, having its chief -strength in Poland, with considerable force in Holland and England. In -1524, one Lewis Hetzer had been publicly burned at Constance, for -denying the divinity of Jesus; but Hetzer was more connected with the -Anabaptists than with the Unitarians. About the same time a man named -Claudius openly argued amongst the Swiss people, against the doctrine of -the Trinity, and one John Campanus contended at Wittenberg, and other -places, against the usually inculcated doctrines of the Church, as to -the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. - -In 1566, Valentine Gentilis, a Neapolitan, was put to death at Berne, -for teaching the superiority of God the Father, over the Son and the -Holy Ghost. Modern Unitarianism appears to have had as its founders or -chief promoters, Laelius Socinus, and his nephew Faustus Socinus; the -first having the better brain and higher genius, but marred by a timid -and irresolute character; the second having a more active nature and -bolder temperament. From Cracow and Racow, during the latter half of -this century, the Unitarians (who drew into their ranks many men of -advanced minds) issued a large number of books and pamphlets, which were -circulated amongst the people with considerable zeal and industry. -Unitarianism was carried from Poland into Transylvania by a physician, -George Blandrata, and a preacher Francis David or Davides, who obtained -the support and countenance of the then ruler of the country. Davides -unfortunately for himself, became too unitarian for the Unitarians; he -adopted the extreme views of one Simon Budnaeus, who, in Lithuania, -entirely repudiated any sort of religious worship in reference to Jesus. -Budnaeus was excommunicated by the Unitarians themselves, and Davides -was imprisoned for the rest of his life. As the Unitarians were -persecuted by the old Romish and New Lutheran Churches, so they in turn -persecuted seceders from and opposers of their own movement. Each man's -history involved the widening out of public thought; each act of -persecution illustrated a vain endeavor to check the progress of heresy; -each new sect marked a step towards the destruction of the old -obstructive faiths. - -About the close of the sixteenth century, Ernestius Sonerus, of -Nuremberg, wrote against the doctrine of eternal torment, and also -against the divinity of Jesus, but his works were never very widely -circulated. Amongst the distinguished Europeans of the sixteenth century -whom Dr. J.P. Smith mentions as either Atheists or favoring Atheism, -were Paul Jovius, Peter Aretin, and Muretus. Rumor has even enrolled -Louis X himself in the Atheistical ranks. How far some of these men had -warranted the charge other than by being promoters of literature and -lovers of philosophy, it is now difficult to say. A determined -resistance was offered to the spread of heretical opinions in the South -of Europe by the Roman Church, and it is alleged that some thousands of -persons were burned or otherwise punished in Spain, Portugal, and Naples -during the sixteenth century. The Inquisition or Holy Office was in -Spain and Portugal the most prominent and active persecutor, but -persecution was carried on vigorously in other parts of Europe by the -seceders from Rome. [Zwingli], Luther, and Calvin, were as harsh as the -Pope towards those with whom they differed. - -Michael Servetus, or Servede, was a native of Arragon, by profession a -physician; he wrote against the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity, but -was far from ordinary Unitarianism. He was burned at Geneva, at the -instance of Calvin. Calvin was rather fond of burning heretical -opponents; to the name of Servetus might be added that of Gruet, who -also was burned at the instance of Calvin, for denying the divinity of -the Christian religion, and for arguing against the immortality of the -soul. - -It is worth notice that while heresy in this sixteenth century began to -branch out openly, and to strike its roots down firmly amongst the -people, ecclesiastical historians are compelled to record improvement in -the condition of society. Mosheim says: "In this century the arts and -sciences were carried to a pitch unknown to preceding ages, and from -this happy renovation of learning, the European churches derived the -most signal and inestimable advantages." "The benign influence of true -science, and its tendency to improve both the form of religion and the -institutions of civil policy, were perceived by many of the states." The -love of literature is the most remarkable and characteristic form of -advancing civilisation. Instead of being the absorbing passion of the -learned few, it becomes gradually the delight and occupation of -increasing numbers. This cultivation of literary pursuits by the masses -is only possible when enough of heresy has been obtained to render their -scope of study wide enough to be useful. Rotterdam gave life to the -polished Erasmus, Valentia to Ludovico Vivez, Picardy to Le Fevre, and -France to Rabelais. - -In the latter half of this century, giants in literature grew out, -giants who wrote for the people. William Shakspere wrote even for those -who could not read, but who might learn while looking and listening. His -comedies and tragedies are at the same time pictures for the people of -diverse phases of English life and character, with a thereunto added -universality of portrayal and breadth in philosophy, which it is hardly -too much to say, that no other dramatist has ever equaled. Italy boasts -its 'Torquato Tasso, whose "Jerusalem Delivered," the grand work of a -great poet, marks, like a mighty monument, the age capable of finding -even in a priest-ridden country, an audience amongst the lowest as well -as the highest, ready to read and sing, and finally permeated with the -poet's outpourings. In astronomy, the name of Tycho Brahe stands out in -the sixteenth century like one of the first magnitude stars whose -existence he catalogued. - - - - -Chapter III. The Seventeenth Century - - -THE seeds of inquiry sown in the sixteenth century resulted in a -fruitful display of advanced opinions during the next age. In the page -of seventeenth-century history, more names of men, either avowedly -heretics, or charged by the orthodox with heresy, or whose labors can be -shown to have tended to the growth of heresy, may probably be recorded -than can be found during the whole of the previously long period during -which the Christian Church assumed to dominate and control European -thought. The seventeenth-century muster-roll of heresy is indeed a grand -one, and gloriously filled. One of its early martyrs was Julius Caesar -Vanini, who was burned at Toulouse, in the year 1619, aged 34, as "an -impious and obstinate Atheist." Was he Atheist, or was he not? This is a -question, in answering which the few remains of his works give little -ground for sharing the opinion of his persecutors. Yet many writers -agree in writing as if his Atheism were of indisputable notoriety. He -was a poor Neapolitan priest, he preached a sort of Pantheism; -unfortunately for himself, he believed in the utility of public -discussion on theological questions, and thus brought upon his head the -charge of seeking to convert the world to Atheism. - -In 1611, two men, named Legat and Whitman, were burned in England for -heresy. "But," says Buckle, "this was the last gasp of expiring bigotry; -and since that memorable day the soil of England has never been stained -by the blood of a man who has suffered for his religious creed." - -Peter Charron, of Paris, ought perhaps to have been included in the -sixteenth-century list, for he died in 1603, but his only known work, -"La Sagesse," belongs to the seventeenth century, in which it circulated -and obtained reputation. He urged that religion is the accidental result -of birth and education, and that therefore variety of creed should not -be cause of quarrel between men, as such variety is the result of -circumstances over which the men themselves have had no control; and he -urges that as each sect claims to be the only true one, we ought to rise -superior to all sects, and without being terrified by the fear of future -punishment, or allured by the hope of future happiness, "be content with -such practical religion as consists in performing the duties of life." -Buckle, who speaks in high terms of Charron, says: "The Sorbonne went so -far as to condemn Charron's great work, but could not succeed in having -it prohibited." - -Rene Descartes Duperron, a few years later than Bacon (he was born in -1596, at La Haye, in Touraine, died 1650, at Stockholm) established the -foundations of the deductive method of reasoning, and applied it in a -manner which Bacon had apparently carefully avoided. Both Descartes and -Bacon addressed themselves to the task of substituting for the old -systems, a more comprehensive and useful spirit of philosophy; but while -Bacon sought to accomplish this by persuading men to experiment and -observation, Descartes commenced with the search for a first and -self-evident ground of all knowledge. This, to him, is found in -consciousness. The existence of Deity was a point which Bacon left -untouched by reason, yet with Descartes it was the first proposition he -sought to prove. He says: "I have always thought that the two questions -of the existence of God and the nature of the soul, were the chief of -those which ought to be demonstrated rather by philosophy than by -theology, for although it is sufficient for us, the faithful, to believe -in God, and that the soul does not perish with the body, it does not -seem possible ever to persuade the infidels to any religion unless we -first prove to them those two things by natural reason." To prove this -existence of God and the immortality of the soul, Descartes needed a -firm starting point, one which no doubt could touch, one which no -argument could shake. He found this point in the fact of his own -existence. He could doubt everything else, but he could not doubt that -he, the thinking doubter, existed. His own existence was the primal -fact, the indubitable certainty, which served as the base for all other -reasonings, hence his famous "Cogito ergo sum:"--I think, therefore I -am. And although it has been fairly objected that Descartes did not -exist because he thought, but existed and thought; it is nevertheless -clear that it is only in the thinking that Descartes had the -consciousness of his existence. The fact of Descartes' existence was, to -him, one above and beyond all logic. Evidence could not add to the -certitude, no scepticism could impeach it. Whether or not we agree with -the Cartesian philosophy, or the reasonings used to sustain it, we must -admire the following four rules which he has given us, and which, with -the view of consciousness in which we do not entirely concur, are the -essential features of the basis of a considerable portion of Descartes' -system:-- - -"1. Never to accept anything as true but what is evidently so; to admit -nothing but what so clearly and distinctly presents itself as true, that -there can be no reason to doubt it. - -"2. To divide every question into as many separate parts as possible, -that each part being more easily conceived, the whole may be more -intelligible. - -"3. To conduct the examination with order, beginning by that of objects -the most simple, and therefore the easiest to be known, and ascending -little by little up to knowledge of the most complex. - -"4. To make such exact calculations, and such circumspections as to be -confident that nothing essential has been omitted." - -"Consciousness being the basis of all certitude, everything, of which -you are clearly and distinctly conscious must be true; everything which -you clearly and distinctly conceive, exists, if the idea involve -existence." - -It should be remarked that consciousness being a state or condition of -the mind, is by no means an infallible guide. Men may fancy they have -clear ideas, when their consciousness, if carefully examined, would -prove to have been treacherous. Descartes argued for three classes of -ideas--acquired, compounded, and innate. It is in his assumption of -innate ideas that you have one of the radical weaknesses of his system. -Sir William Hamilton points out that the use of the word idea by -Descartes, to express the object of memory, imagination, and sense, was -quite a new usage, only one other writer, David Buchanan, having -previously used the word idea with this signification. - -Descartes did not write for the mass, and his philosophy would have been -limited to a much narrower circle had its spread rested on his own -efforts. But the age was one for new thought, and the contemporaries and -successors of Descartes carried the Cartesian logic to extremes he had -perhaps avoided, and they taught the new philosophy to the world in a -fearless spirit, with a boldness for which Descartes could have given -them no example. Descartes, who in early life had travelled much more -than was then the custom, had probably made the personal acquaintance of -most of the leading thinkers of Europe then living; it would be -otherwise difficult to account for the very ready reception given by -them to his first work. Fortunately for Descartes, he was born with a -fair fortune, and escaped such difficulties as poorer philosophers must -needs submit to. There is perhaps a per contra side. It is more than -possible that if the needs of life had compelled him, Descartes' -scientific predilections might have resulted in more immediate advantage -to society. His philosophy is often pedantic to weariness, and his -scientific theories are often sterile. The fear of poverty might have -quickened some of his speculations [into] a more practical utterance. -Buckle reminds us that Descartes "was the first who successfully applied -algebra to geometry; that he pointed out the important law of the sines; -that in an age in which optical instruments were extremely imperfect, he -discovered the changes to which light is subjected in the eye by the -crystalline lens; that he directed attention to the consequences -resulting from the weight of the atmosphere, and that he detected the -causes of the rainbow." "Descartes," says Saintes, "throwing off the -swaddling clothes of scholasticism, resolved to owe to himself alone the -acquisition of the truth which he so earnestly desired to possess. For -what else is the methodical doubt which he established as the starting -point in his philosophy, than an energetic protest of the human mind -against all external authority? Having thus placed all science on a -philosophical basis, no matter what, he freed philosophy herself from -her long servitude, and proclaimed her queen of the intellect. Hence -everyone who has wished to account to himself for his existence, -everyone who has desired to know himself, to know nature, and to rise to -its author; in a word, all who have wished to make a wise use of their -intellectual faculties, to apply them, not to hollow speculations which -border on nonentity, but to sensible and practical inquiries, have taken -and followed some direction from Descartes." It is almost amusing when -philosophers criticise their predecessors. Mons. Henri Ritter denies to -Descartes any originality of method or even of illustration, while Hegel -describes him as the founder of modern philosophy, whose influence upon -his own age and on modern times it is impossible to exaggerate. To -attempt to deal fully and truly with Descartes in the few lines which -can be spared here, is impossible; all that is sought is to as it were -catalogue his name in the seventeenth-century list. Whether originator -or imitator, whether founder or disciple, it is certain that Descartes -gave a sharp spur to European thought, and mightily hastened the -progress of heresy. It is not the object or duty of the present writer -to examine or refute any of the extraordinary views entertained by -Descartes as to vortices. Descartes himself is reported to have said, -"my theory of vortices is a philosophical romance." Science in the last -three centuries has travelled even more rapidly than philosophy; and -most of the physical speculations of Descartes are relegated to the -region of grandly curious blunderings. There is one point of error held -by Descartes sufficiently entertained even to-day--although most often -without a distinct appreciation of the position--to justify a few words -upon it. Descartes denied mental faculties to all the animal kingdom -except mankind. All the brute kingdom he re-garded as machines without -intelligence. In this he was logical, even in error, for he accorded a -soul to man which he denied to the brute. Soul and mind with him are -identified, and thought is the fundamental attribute of mind. To admit -that a dog, horse, or elephant can think, that it can remember what -happened yesterday, that it can reason ever so incompletely, would be to -admit that that dog, horse, or elephant, has some kind of soul; to avoid -this he reduces all animals outside the human family to the position of -machines. To-day science admits in animals, more or less according to -their organisation, perception, memory, judgment, and even some sort of -reason. Yet orthodoxy still claims a soul for man even if he be a madman -from his birth, and denies it to the sagacious elephant, the intelligent -horse, the faithful dog, and the cunning monkey. His proof of the -existence of Deity is thus stated by Lewes:--"Interrogating his -consciousness, he found that he had the idea of God, understanding by -God, a substance infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, omniscient, -omnipotent. This, to him, was as certain a truth as the truth of his own -existence. I exist: not only do I exist, but exist as a miserably -imperfect finite being, subject to change, greatly ignorant and -incapable of creating anything. In this, my consciousness, I find by my -finitude that I am not the All; by my imperfection, that I am not -perfect. Yet an infinite and perfect being must exist, because infinity -and perfection are implied as correlatives in my ideas of imperfection -and finitude. God therefore exists: his existence is clearly proclaimed -in my consciousness, and can no more be a matter of doubt, when fairly -considered, than my own existence. The conception of an infinite being -proves his real existence; for if there is not really such a being, I -must have made the conception; but if I could make it, I can also unmake -it, which evidently is not true; therefore there must be, externally to -myself, an archetype from which the conception was derived. All that we -clearly and distinctly conceive as contained in anything, is true of -that thing. Now we conceive, clearly and distinctly, that the existence -of God is contained in the idea we have of him--Ergo, God exists." - -It may not be out of place to note at this point, that the Jesuit -writer, Father Hardouin, in his "Atheists Unmasked," as a recompense for -this demonstration of the existence of Deity, places Descartes and his -disciples, le Grand and Regis, in the first rank of atheistical -teachers. Voltaire, commenting on this, remarks: "The man who had -devoted all the acuteness of his extraordinary intellect to the -discovery of new proofs of the existence of a God, was most absurdly -charged with denying him altogether." Speaking of the proof of the -existence of Deity: "Demonstrations of this kind," says Froude, "were -the characteristics of the period." Descartes had set the example of -constructing them, and was followed by Cud-worth, Clarke, Berkeley, and -many others besides Spinoza. The inconclusiveness of the method may -perhaps be observed most readily in the strangely opposite conceptions -formed by all these writers of the nature of that Being whose existence -they nevertheless agreed, by the same process, to gather each out of -their ideas. It is important, however, to examine it carefully, for it -is the very keystone of the Pantheistic system. As stated by Descartes, -the argument stands something as follows:--God is an allperfect Being, -perfection is the idea which we form of Him, existence is a mode of -perfection, and therefore God exists. The sophism, we are told, is only -apparent, existence is part of the idea--as much involved in it as the -equality of all lines drawn from the centre to the circumference of a -circle is involved in the idea of a circle. A non-existent all-perfect -Being is as inconceivable as a quadrilateral triangle. It is sometimes -answered that in this way we may prove the existence of anything, -Titans, Chimeras, or the Olympian gods; we have but to define them as -existing, and the proof is complete. But this objection is summarily set -aside; none of these beings are by hypothesis absolutely perfect, and, -therefore, of their existence we can conclude nothing. With greater -justice, however, we may say, that of such terms as perfection and -existence we know too little to speculate. Existence may be an -imperfection for all we can tell, we know nothing about the matter. - -Such arguments are but endless _petitiones principii_--like the -self-devouring serpent, resolving themselves into nothing. We wander -round and round them in the hope of finding some tangible point at which -we can seize their meaning; but we are presented everywhere with the -same impracticable surface, from which our grasp glides off ineffectual. - -Thomas Hobbes, of Malmesbury, is one of those men more often freely -abused than carefully read; he was born April 5th, 1588, died 1679. He -was "the subtlest dialectician of his time," and one of the earliest -English advocates of the materialistic limitation of mind; he denies the -possibility of any knowledge other than as resulting from sensation; his -doctrine is in direct negation of Descartes' theory of innate ideas, and -would be fatal to the orthodox dogma of mind as spiritual. "Whatever we -imagine," he says "is finite. Therefore there is no idea, no conception -of anything we call infinite." In a brief pamphlet on his own views, -published in 1680, in reply to attacks upon him, he writes: "Besides the -creation of the world there is no argument to prove a Deity," "and that -it cannot be decided by any argument that the world had a beginning; but -he professes to admit the authority of the Magistrate and the Scriptures -to override argument. He says that he does not believe that the safety -of the state depends upon the safety of the church." Some of Hobbes' -pieces were only in Latin, others were issued in English. In one of -those on Heresy, he mentions that by the statute of Edward VI, cap. 12, -there is no provision for the repeal of all former acts of parliament -"made to punish any matter of doctrine concerning religion." - -In the following extracts the reader will find the prominent features of -that sensationalism which to-day has so many adherents:--"Concerning the -thoughts of man, I will consider them first singly, and afterwards in a -train or dependence upon one another. Singly they are every one a -representation or appearance of some quality or other accident of a body -without us, which is commonly called an object. Which object worketh on -the eyes, ears, and other parts of a man's body, and by diversity of -working produceth diversity of appearances. The original of them all is -that which we call sense, for there is no conception in a man's mind -which hath not at first totally or by parts been begotten upon the -organs of sense. The rest are derived from that original." The effect of -this is to deny any possible knowledge other than as results from the -activity of the sensitive faculties, and is also fatal to the doctrine -of a soul. "According," says Hobbes, "to the two principal parts of man, -I divide his faculties into two sorts--faculties of the body, and -faculties of the mind. Since the minute and distinct anatomy of the -powers of the body is nothing necessary to the present purpose, I will -only sum them up in these three heads--power nutritive, power -generative, and power motive. Of the powers of the mind there be two -sorts--cognitive, imaginative, or conceptive, and motive. For the -understanding of what I mean by the power cognitive, we must remember -and acknowledge that there be in our minds continually certain images or -conceptions of the things without us. This imagery and representation of -the qualities of the things without, is that which we call our -conception, imagination, ideas, notice, or knowledge of them; and the -faculty, or power by which we are capable of such knowledge, is that I -here call cognitive power, or conceptive, the power of knowing or -conceiving." "All the qualities called sensible are, in the object that -causeth them, but so many several motions of the matter by which it -presseth on our organs diversely. Neither in us that are pressed are -they anything else but divers motions; for motion produceth nothing but -motion. Because the image in vision, consisting of color and shape, is -the knowledge we have of the qualities of the objects of that sense; it -is no hard matter for a man to fall into this opinion that the same -color and shape are the very qualities themselves, and for the same -cause that sound and noise are the qualities of the bell or of the air. -And this opinion hath been so long received that the contrary must needs -appear a great paradox, and yet the introduction of species visible and -intelligible (which is necessary for the maintenance of that opinion) -passing to and fro from the object is worse than any paradox, as being a -plain impossibility. I shall therefore endeavor to make plain these -points. That the subject wherein color and image are inherent, is not -the object or thing seen. That there is nothing without us (really) -which we call an image or color. That the said image or color is but an -apparition unto us of the motion, agitation, or alteration which the -object worketh in the brain, or spirits, or some internal substance of -the head. That as in visions, so also in conceptions that arise from the -other senses, the subject of their inference is not the object but the -sentient." Strange to say, Hobbes was protected from his clerical -antagonists by the favor of Charles II, who had the portrait of the -philosopher of Malmesbury hung on the walls of his private room at -Whitehall. - -Lord Herbert, of Cherbury (one of the friends of Hobbes) born 1581, died -1648, is remarkable for having written a book "De Veritate," in favor of -natural--and against any necessity for revealed--religion; and yet at -the same time pleading a sort of special sign or revelation to himself -in favor of its publication. - -Peter Gassendi, a native of Provence, born 1592, died 1655, was one of -the opponents of Descartes and of Lord Herbert, and was an admirer of -Hobbes; he advocated the old philosophy of Epicurus, professing to -reject "from it everything contrary to Christianity." "But," asks -Cousin, "how could he succeed in this? Principles, processes, results, -everything in Epicurus is sensualism, materialism, Atheism." Gassendi's -works were characterised by great learning and ability, but being -confined to the Latin tongue, and written avowedly with the intent of -avoiding any conflict with the church, they gave but little immediate -impetus to the great heretical movement. Arnauld charges Gassendi with -overturning the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, in his -discussion with Descartes, and Leibnitz charges Gassendi with corrupting -and injuring the whole system of natural religion by the wavering nature -of his opinions. Buckle says: "The rapid increase of heresy in the -middle of the seventeenth century is very remarkable, and it greatly -aided civilisation in England by encouraging habits of independent -thought." In February 1646, Boyle writes from London: "There are few -days pass here, that may not justly be accused of the brewing or -broaching of some new opinion. If any man have lost his religion, let -him repair to London, and I'll warrant him he shall find it: I had -almost said too, and if any man has a religion, let him but come hither -now and he shall go near to lose it." - -About 1655, one Isaac La Peyrere wrote two small treatises to prove that -the world was peopled before Adam, but being arrested at Brussels, and -threatened with the stake, he, to escape the fiery refutation, made a -full recantation of his views, and restored to the world its -dearly-prized stain of natural depravity, and to Adam his position as -the first man. La Peyrere's forced recantation is almost forgotten, the -opinions he recanted are now amongst common truths. - -Baruch D'Espinoza or Benedict Spinoza, was born Nov. 24, 1632, in -Amsterdam; an apt scholar, he, at the early age of fourteen, had -mastered the ordinary tasks set him by his teacher, the Rabbi Moteira, -and at fifteen puzzled and affrighted the grave heads of the synagogue, -by attempting the solution of problems which they themselves were well -content to pass by. As he grew older his reason took more daring -flights, and after attempts had been made to bribe him into submissive -silence, when threats had failed to check or modify him, and when even -the knife had no effect, then the fury of disappointed fanaticism found -vent in the bitter curse of excommunication, and when about twenty-four -years of age, Spinoza found himself outcast and anathematised. Having no -private means or rich patrons, and differing in this from nearly -everyone whose name we have yet given, our hero subsisted as a polisher -of glasses, microscopes, etc., devoting his leisure to the study of -languages and philosophy. There are few men as to whom modern writers -have so widely differed in the description of their views, few who have -been so thoroughly misrepresented. Bayle speaks of him as a systematic -Atheist. Saintes says that he laid the foundations of a Pantheism as -destructive to scholastic philosophy as to all revealed religion. -Voltaire repeatedly writes of Spinoza as an Atheist and teacher of -Atheism. Samuel Taylor Coleridge speaks of Spinoza as an Atheist, and -prefaces this opinion with the following passage, which we commend to -more orthodox and less acute writers:--"Little do these men know what -Atheism is. Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind, or -goodness of heart to be an Atheist. I repeat it--Not one man in a -thousand has either goodness of heart, or strength of mind, to be an -Atheist." "And yet," says Froude, "both in friend and enemy alike, there -has been a reluctance to see Spinoza as he really was. The Herder and -Schleiermacher school have claimed him as a Christian, a position which -no little disguise was necessary to make tenable; the orthodox -Protestants and Catholics have called him an Atheist, which is still -more extravagant; and even a man like Novalis, who, it might have been -expected, would have said something reasonable, could find no better -name for him than a 'Gott trunkener mann,' a God intoxicated man: an -expression which has been quoted by every-body who has since written on -the subject, and which is about as inapplicable as those laboriously -pregnant sayings usually are. With due allowance for exaggeration, such -a name would describe tolerably the transcendental mystics, a Toler, a -Boehmen, or a Swedenborg; but with what justice can it be applied to the -cautious, methodical Spinoza, who carried his thoughts about with him -for twenty years, deliberately shaping them, and who gave them at last -to the world in a form more severe than with such subjects had ever been -so much as attempted before? With him, as with all great men, there was -no effort after sublime emotions. He was a plain, practical person; his -object in philosophy was only to find a rule by which to govern his own -actions and his own judgment; and his treatises contain no more than the -conclusions at which he arrived in this purely personal search, with the -grounds on which he rested them." - -Spinoza, who was wise enough to know that it was utterly useless to -expect an unfettered examination of philosophical problems by men who -are bound to accept as an infallible arbiter any particular book, and -who knew that reasonings must be of a very limited character which took -the alleged Hebrew Revelation as the centre and starting point for all -inquiry, and also as the circling limitation line for all -investigation--devoted himself to the task of examining how far the -ordinary orthodox doctrines as to the infallibility of the Old Testament -were fairly maintainable. It was for this reason he penned his -"Tractatus Theologico-Politicus," wherein he says: "We see that they who -are most under the influence of superstitious feelings, and who covet -uncertainties without stint or measure, more especially when they fall -into difficulty or danger, cannot help themselves, are the persons, who, -with vows and prayers and womanly tears, implore the Divine assistance; -who call reason blind, and human wisdom vain; and all, forsooth, because -they cannot find an assured way to the vanities they desire." "The -mainspring of superstition is fear; by fear too is superstition -sustained and nourished." "Men are chiefly assailed by superstition when -suffering from fear, and all they then do in the name of a vain religion -is, in fact, but the vaporous product of a sorrowful spirit, the -delirium of a mind overpowered by terror." He proceeds: "I have often -wondered that men who boast of the great advantage they enjoy under the -Christian dispensation--the peace, the joy they experience, the -brotherly love they feel towards all in its exercise--should -nevertheless contend with so much acrimony, and show such intolerance -and unappeasable hatred towards one another. If faith had to be inferred -from action rather than profession, it would indeed be impossible to say -to what sect or creed the majority of mankind belong." He laid down that -"No one is bound by natural law to live according to the pleasure of -another, but that every one is by natural title the rightful asserter of -his own independence," and that "he or they govern best who concede to -every one the privilege of thinking as he pleases, and of saying what he -thinks." Criticising the Hebrew prophets, he points out that "God used -no particular style in making his communications; but in the same -measure as the prophet possessed learning and ability, his -communications were either concise and clear, or on the contrary, they -were rude, prolix, and obscure." The representations of Zechariah, as we -learn from the accounts themselves, were so obscure that without an -explanation they could not be understood by himself; and those of Daniel -were so dark, that even when explained, they were still unintelligible, -not to others only, but also to the prophet himself. He argues entirely -against miracles, as either contrary to nature or above nature, -declaring any such to be "a sheer absurdity," "merum esse absurdum." Of -the Scriptures themselves he points out that the ancient Hebrew is -entirely lost. "Of the authors, or, if you please, writers, of many -books, we either know almost nothing, or we entertain grave doubts as to -the correctness with which the several books are ascribed to the parties -whose names they bear." "Then we neither know on what occasion, nor at -what time those books were indited, the writers of which are unknown to -us. Further, we know nothing of the hands into which the books fell; nor -of the codices which have furnished such a variety of readings, nor -whether, perchance, there were not many other variations in other -copies." Voltaire says of Spinoza: "Not only in the character of a Jew -he attacks the New Testament, but in the character of a scholar he ruins -the Old." - -The logic of Spinoza was directed to the demonstration of one substance -with infinite attributes, for which one substance with infinite -attributes he had as equivalent the name "God." Some who have since -followed Spinoza, have agreed in his one substance, but have denied the -possibility of infinite attributes. Attributes or qualities, they urge, -are attributes of the finite or conditioned, and you cannot have -attributes of substance except as attributes of its modes. You have in -this distinction the division line between Spinozism and Atheism. -Spinoza recognises infinite intelligence, but Atheism cannot conceive -intelligence except in relation as quality of the conditioned, and not -as the essence of the absolute. Spinoza denied the doctrine of freewill, -as with him all phenomena are of God, so he rejects the ordinary notions -of good and evil. The popular views of Spinoza in the seventeenth and -eighteenth centuries were chiefly derived from the volumes of his -antagonists; men learned his name because priests abused him, few had -perused his works for themselves. To-day we may fairly say that -Spinoza's logic and his biblical criticisms gave a vigor and force to -the heresy of the latter half of the seventeenth and beginning of the -eighteenth century, a directness and effectiveness therebefore wanting. -As for the Bible, there was no longer an affected reverence for every -yod or comma, church traditions were ignored wherever inconsistent with -reason, and the law itself was boldly challenged when its letter was -against the spirit of human progress. - -One of the greatest promoters of heresy in England was Ralph Cudworth, -born 1617, died 1688. He wrote to combat the Atheistical tenets which -were then commencing to obtain popularity in England, and was a -controversialist so fair and candid in the statement of the opinions of -his antagonists, that he was actually charged with heresy himself, and -the epithets of Arian, Socinian, Deist, and even Atheist were freely -leveled against him. "He has raised," says Dryden, "such strong -objections against the being of a God and Providence, that many think he -has not answered them." The clamor of bigotry seems to have discouraged -Cudworth, and he left many of his works unprinted. Cousin describes him -as "a Platonist, of a firm and profound mind, who bends somewhat under -the weight of his erudition." - -Thomas Burnett, born 1635, died 1715, a clergyman of the Church of -England, though in high favor with King William and the famous -Archbishop Tillotson, is said to have been shut out of preferment in the -church chiefly, if not entirely, on account of his many heterodox views. -He did not accept the orthodox notions on the Mosaic account of the -creation, fall, and deluge. Regarding the account of the fall as -allegorical, he argued for the ultimate salvation of everyone, and of -course denied the doctrine of eternal torment. In a curious passage -relating to the equivocations of a large number of the clergy in openly -taking the oath of allegiance to William III, while secretly supporting -James as King, Burnet says: "The prevarication of too many in so sacred -a matter contributed not a little to fortify the growing Atheism of the -time." - -As Descartes and Spinoza had been foremost on the continent, so was -Locke in England, and no sketch of the progress of heresy during the -seventeenth century would be deserving serious regard which did not -accord a prominent place to John Locke, whom G.H. Lewes calls "one of -the Wisest of Englishmen," and of whom Buckle speaks as "an innovator in -his philosophy, and a Unitarian in his creed." He was born in 1632, and -died in 1704. Locke, according to his own fashion, was a sincere and -earnest Christian; but this has not saved him from being furiously -assailed for the materialistic character of his philosophy, and many -have been ready to assert that Locke's principles "lead to Atheism." In -politics Locke laid down, that unjust and unlawful force on the part of -the Government might and ought to be resisted by force on the part of -the citizens. He urged that on questions of theology there ought to be -no penalties consequent upon the reception or rejection of any -particular religious opinion. How far those were right who regarded -Locke's metaphysical reasoning as dangerous to orthodoxy may be judged -by the following extract on the origin of ideas:-- - -"Follow a child from its birth and observe the alterations that time -makes, and you shall find, as the mind by the senses comes more and more -to be furnished with ideas, it comes to be more and more awake; thinks -more, the more it has matter to think on. After some time, it begins to -know the objects, which being most familiar with it, have made lasting -impressions. Thus it comes, by degrees, to know the persons it daily -converses with, and distinguishes them from strangers; which are -instances and effects of its coming to retain and distinguish the ideas -the senses convey to it; and so we may observe, how the mind by degrees -improves in these, and advances to the exercise of those other faculties -of enlarging, compounding, and abstracting its ideas, and of reasoning -about them, and reflecting upon all these. - -"If it shall be demanded then, when a man begins to have any ideas? I -think the true answer is, when he first has any sensation. For since -there appear not to be any ideas in the mind before the senses have -conveyed any in, I conceive that ideas in the understanding are coeval -with sensation; which is such an impression or emotion, made in some -part of the body, as produces some perception in the understanding. It -is about these impressions made on our senses by outward objects, that -the mind seems first to employ itself in such operations as we call -perception, remembering, consideration, reasoning, etc. - -"In time, the mind comes to reflect on its own operations, about the -ideas got by sensation, and thereby stores itself with a new set of -ideas, which I call ideas of reflexion. These are the impressions that -are made on our senses by outward objects, that are extrinsical to the -mind; and its own operation, proceeding from powers intrinsical and -proper to itself, which, when reflected on by itself, becoming also -objects of its contemplation, are, as I have said, the original of all -knowledge. Thus the first capacity of human intellect is, that the mind -is fitted to receive the impressions made on it, either through the -senses, by outward objects, or by its own operations, when it reflects -on them. This is the first step a man makes towards the discovery of -anything, and the ground-work whereon to build all those notions which -ever he shall have naturally in this world. All those sublime thoughts -which tower above the clouds, and reach as high as heaven itself, take -their rise and footing here: in all that good extent wherein the mind -wanders, in those remote speculations, it may seem to be elevated with, -it stirs not one jot beyond those ideas which sense or reflexion have -offered for its contemplation. - -"In this part the understanding is merely passive; and whether or no it -will have these beginnings, and, as it were, materials of knowledge, is -not in its own power. For the objects of our senses do, many of them, -obtrude their particular ideas upon our minds, whether we will or no; -and the operations of our minds will not let us be without, at least, -some obscure notions of them. No man can be wholly ignorant of what he -does when he thinks. These simple ideas, when offered to the mind, the -understanding can no more refuse to have, nor alter, when they are -imprinted, nor blot them out and make new ones itself, than a mirror can -refuse, alter, or obliterate the images or ideas which the objects set -before it do therein produce. As the bodies that surround us do -diversely affect our organs, the mind is forced to receive the -impressions, and cannot avoid the perception of those ideas that are -annexed to them." - -The distinction pointed out by Lewes between Locke and Hobbes and -Gassendi, is that the two latter taught that all our ideas were derived -from sensations, while Locke said there were two sources, not one -source, and these two were sensation and reflexion. Locke was in style a -more popular writer than Hobbes, and the heretical effect of the -doctrines on the mind not being so immediately perceived in consequence -of Locke's repeated declarations in favor of Christianity, his -metaphysical productions were more widely read than those of Hobbes; but -Locke really teaches the same doctrine as that laid down by Robert Owen -in his views on the formation of character; and his views on sensation, -as the primary source of ideas, are fatal to all notions of innate ideas -and of freewill. Voltaire, speaking of Locke, says:--"'We shall, -perhaps, never be capable of knowing whether a being purely material -thinks or not.' This judicious and guarded observation was considered by -more than one divine, as neither more nor less than a scandalous and -impious declaration, that the soul is material and mortal. Some English -devotees, after their usual manner, sounded the alarm. The superstitious -are in society what poltroons are in an army--they both feel and excite -causeless terror. The cry was, that Mr. Locke wished to overturn -religion; the subject, however, had nothing to do with religion at all; -it was purely a philosophical question, and perfectly independent of -faith and revelation." One clergyman, the Rev. William Carrol, wrote, -charging Atheism as the result of Locke's teaching. The famous Sir Isaac -Newton even grew so alarmed with the materialistic tendency of Locke's -philosophy, that when John Locke was reported sick and unlikely to live, -it is credibly stated that Newton went so far as to say that it would be -well if the author of the essay on the Understanding were already dead. - -In 1689, one Cassimer Leszynski, a Polish knight, was burned at Warsaw -for denying the being and providence of a God; but there are no easy -means of learning whether the charge arose from prejudice on the part of -his accusers, or whether this unfortunate gentleman really held -Atheistic views. - -Peter Bayle, born at Carlat, in Foix, 1647, died in Holland, 1706, was a -writer of great power and brilliancy and wide learning. Without standing -avowedly on the side of scepticism, he did much to promote sceptical -views amongst the rapidly growing class of men of letters. He declared -that it was better to be an Atheist, than to have a false or unworthy -idea of God; that a man can be at the same time an Atheist and an honest -man, and that a people without a religion is capable of good order. -Bayle's writings grew more heretical towards the latter part of his -career, and he suffered considerable persecution at the hands of the -Church, for having spoken too plainly of the character of David. He said -that "if David was the man after God's own heart, it must have been by -his penitence, not by his crimes." Bayle might have added, that the -record of David's penitence is not easily discoverable in any part of -the narrative of his life. - -Matthew Tindal, born 1656, died 1733, was, though the son of a clergyman -of the Established Church, one of the first amongst the school of -Deistical writers who became so prominent in the beginning of the -eighteenth century. Dr. Pye Smith catalogues him as "an Atheist," but we -know no ground for this. He was a zealous controversialist, and -commencing by attacking priests, he continued his attack against the -revelation they preached. He was a frequent writer, but his -"Christianity as old as the Creation" is his chief work, and the one -which has provoked the greatest amount of discussion. It was published -nearly at the close of his life, and after he had seen others of his -writings burned by the common hangman. Dr. Matthew Tindal helped much to -shake belief in the Bible, those who wrote against him did much more; if -no one had replied to Tindal, his attacks on revelation would have been -read by few, but in answering the heretic, Bishop Waterland and his -_confreres_ gave wider circulation to Tindal's heresy. - -John Toland was born Nov. 30, 1670, at Londonderry, but was educated in -Scotland. He died 1722. His publications were all about the close of the -seventeenth and commencement of the eighteenth centuries, and the -ability of his contributions to popular instruction may be judged by the -abusive epithets heaped upon him by his opponents. While severely -attacking the bulk of the clergy as misleaders of the people, and while -also assailing some of the chief orthodox notions, he yet, either in -order to escape the law, or from the effect of his religious education, -professed a respect for what he was pleased to call true Christianity, -but which we should be inclined to consider, at the least, somewhat -advanced Unitarianism. At last, however, his works were ordered to be -burned by the common hangman, and to escape arrest and prosecution he -had to flee to the Continent. Dr. J. Pye Smith describes Toland as a -Pantheist, and calls his Pantheisticon "an Atheistic Liturgy." In one of -Toland's essays he laments "how hard it is to come to a truth yourself, -and how dangerous a thing to publish to others." The publications of -Toland were none of them very bulky although numerous, and as most of -them were fiercely assailed by the orthodox clergy, they helped to -excite popular interest in England in the critical examination of the -Scriptures and the doctrines therein taught. - -Besides the few authors to whom attention is here drawn, there were -numerous men who--each for a little while, and often coming out from the -lower ranks of the people themselves--stirred the hitherto almost -stagnant pool of popular thought with some daring utterance or -extravagant statement. Fanatics some, mystics some, alchemists some, -materialists some, but all crude and imperfect in their grasp of the -subject they advocated, they nevertheless all helped to agitate the -human mind, to render it more restless and inquiring, and thus they all -promoted the march of heresy. One feature of the history of the -seventeenth century shows how much philosophy had gained ground, and how -deep its roots were striking throughout the European world--viz., that -nearly all the writers wrote in the vulgar tongue of their country, or -there were published editions of their works in that tongue. A century -earlier, and but few escaped from the narrow bonds of learned Latin: two -centuries before, and none got outside the Latin folios; but in this -century theology, metaphysics, philosophy, and politics are discussed in -French, German, English, and Italian. The commonest reader may peruse -the most learned author, for the writing is in a language which he -cannot help knowing. - -There were in this century a large number of writers in England and -throughout Europe, who, taking the Bible as a starting-point and -limitation for their philosophy, broached wonderful theories as to -creation, etc., in which reason and revelation were sought to be made -harmonious. Enfield, a most orthodox writer, in his "History of -Philosophy," says: "Who does not perceive, from the particulars which -have been related concerning these Scriptural philosophers, that their -labors, however well intended, have been of little benefit to -philosophy? Their fundamental error has consisted in supposing that the -sacred Scriptures were intended, not only to instruct men in all things -necessary to their salvation, but to teach the true principles of -physical and metaphysical science." How pregnant the admission that -revelation and science cannot be expected to accord--an admission which -in truth declares that in all philosophical research it its necessary to -go beyond the Bible, if not to go against it--an admission which -involves the declaration, that so long as men are bound by the letter of -the Bible, so long all philosophical progress is impossible. - -In this century the English Church lost much of the political power it -had hitherto wielded. It was in 1625, that William, Bishop of Lincoln, -was dismissed from the office of Lord Keeper, and since his day no -ecclesiastic has held the great seal of England, and to-day who even in -the Church itself would dream of trying to make a bishop Lord -Chancellor? The church lost ground in the conflict with Charles; this it -might perhaps have recovered, but it suffered irretrievable loss of -prestige in its struggle with William. - - - - -Chapter IV. The Eighteenth Century - - -THE eighteenth century deserves that the penman who touches its records -shall have some virility; for these records contain, not only the -narrative of the rapid growth of the new philosophy in France, England, -and Germany, where its roots had been firmly struck in the previous -century, but they also give the history of a glorious endeavor on the -part of a down-trodden and long-suffering people, weakened and degraded -by generations of starvation and oppression, to break the yoke of -tyranny and superstition. Eighteenth century historians can write how -the men of France, after having been cursed by a long race of kings, who -never dreamed of identifying their interests with those of the people; -after enduring centuries of tyranny from priests, whose only gods were -power, pleasure, and mammon, and at the hands of nobles, who denied -civil rights to their serfs; at last, could endure no longer, but -electrified into life by eighteenth-century heresy, "spurned under foot -the idols of tyranny and superstition," and sought "by the influence of -reason to erect on the ruins of arbitrary power the glorious edifice of -civil and religious liberty." Why Frenchmen then failed in giving -permanent success to their heroic endeavor, is not difficult to explain, -when we consider that every tyranny in Europe united against that young -republic to which the monarchy had bequeathed a legacy of a wretched -pauper people, a people whose minds had been hitherto wholly in the -hands of the priests, whose passions had revolted against wrong, but -whose brains were yet too weak for the permanent enjoyment of the -freedom temporarily resulting from physical effort. Eighteenth-century -heresy is especially noticeable for its immediate connexion with -political change. For the first time in European history, the great mass -commenced to yearn for the assertion in government of democratic -principles. The French Republican Revolution, which overthrew Louis XVI -and the Bastille, was only possible because the heretical teachers who -preceded it had weakened the divine right of kingcraft; and it was -ultimately unsuccessful, only because an overwhelming majority of the -people were as yet not sufficiently released from the thraldom of the -church, and therefore fell before the allied despotisms of Europe, who -were aided by the Catholic priests, who naturally plotted against the -spirit which seemed likely to make men too independent to be pious. - -In Germany the liberation of the masses from the dominion of the Church -of Rome was effected with the, at first, active believing concurrence of -the nation; in England this was not so. Protestantism here was the -result rather of the influence and interests of the King and Court, and -of the indifference of the great body of the people. The Reformed Church -of England, sustained by the crown and aristocracy, has generally left -the people to find their own way to heaven or hell, and has only -required abstinence from avowed denial of, or active opposition to, its -tenets. Its ministers have usually preached with the same force to a few -worshippers scattered over their grand cathedrals and numerous churches -as to a thronging crowd, but in each case there has been a lack of -vitality in the sermon. It is only when the material interests of the -church have been apparently threatened that vigor has been shown on the -part of its teachers. - -It is a curious fact, and one for comment hereafter, that while in the -modern struggle for the progress of heresy its sixteenth-century pages -present many most prominent Italian names, when we come to the -eighteenth century there are but few such names worthy special notice; -it is no longer from the extreme South, but from France, Germany, and -England, that you have the great array of Freethinking warriors. Those -whom Italy boasts, too, are now nearly all in the Idealistic ranks. - -We commenced the list by a brief reference to Bernard Man-deville, a -Dutch physician, born at Dordrecht in 1670, and who died in 1733; a -writer with great power as a satirist, whose fable of the "Bees, or -Private Vices made Public Benefits," not only served as source for much -of Helvetius, but had the double honor of an indictment at the Middlesex -session, and an answer from the pen of Bishop Berkeley. - -One of the early, and perhaps one of the most important promoters of -heresy in the United Kingdom, was George Berkeley, an Irishman by birth. -He was born on the 12th of March, 1684, at Kilcrin, and died at Oxford -in 1753. It was this writer to whom Pope assigned "every virtue under -heaven," and of whom Byron wrote: - - "When Bishop Berkeley said 'there was no matter,' - And proved it--'twas no matter what he said: - They say his system 'tis in vain to batter, - Too subtle for the airiest human head; - And yet who can believe it?" - -A writer in the "Encyclopaedia Metropolitana" describes him as "the one, -perhaps, whose heart was most free from scepticism, and whose -understanding was most prone to it." Berkeley is here dealt with as one -specially contributing to the growth of sceptical thought, and not as an -Idealist only. Arthur Collier published, about the same time as -Berkeley, several works in which absolute Idealism is advocated. Collier -and Berkeley were mouthpieces for the expression of an effort at -resistance against the growing Spinozistic school. They wrote against -substance assumed as the "noumenon lying underneath all phenomena--the -substratum supporting all qualities--the something in which all -accidents inhere." Collier and his writings are almost unknown; -Berkeley's name has become famous, and his arguments have served to -excite far wider scepticism than have those of any other Englishman of -his age. Most religious men who read him misunderstand him, and nearly -all misrepresent his theory. Hume, speaking of Berkeley, says: "Most of -the writings of that very ingenious philosopher form the best lessons of -scepticism which are to be found, either among the ancient or modern -philosophers, Bayle not excepted. He professes, however, in his title -page (and undoubtedly with great truth) to have composed his book -against the sceptics, as well as against the Atheists and Freethinkers. -But that all his arguments, though otherwise intended, are in reality -merely sceptical, appears from this, that they admit of no answer, and -produce no conviction." - -Berkeley wrote for those who "want a demonstration of the existence and -immateriality of God, or the natural immortality of the soul," and his -philosophy was intended to check materialism. The key-note of his works -may be found in his declaration: "The only thing whose existence I deny, -is that which philosophers call Matter or corporeal substance." The -definition given by Berkeley of matter is one which no materialist will -be ready to accept, i.e., "an inert, senseless substance in which -extension, figure, and motion do actually exist." The "Principles of -Human Knowledge" is the work in which Berkeley's Idealism is chiefly set -forth, and many have been the volumes and pamphlets written in reply. -Whatever might have been Berkeley's intention as to refuting scepticism, -the result of his labors was to increase it in no ordinary degree. Dr. -Pye Smith thus summarises Berkeley's views:--"He denied the existence of -matter as a cause of our perceptions, but firmly maintained the -existence of created and dependent spirits, of which every man is one; -that to suppose the existence of sensible qualities and of a material -world, is an erroneous deduction from the fact of our perceptions; that -those perceptions are nothing but ideas and thoughts in our minds; that -these are produced in perfect uniformity, order, and consistency in all -minds, so that their occurrence is according to fixed rules, which may -be called the laws of nature; that the Deity is either the immediate or -the mediate cause of these perceptions, by his universal operation on -created minds; and that the created mind has a power of managing these -perceptions, so that volitions arise, and all the phenomena of moral -action and responsibility. The great reply to this is, that it is a -hypothesis which cannot be proved, which is highly improbable, and which -seems to put upon the Deity the inflicting on man a perpetual delusion." - -The weakness of Berkeley's system as a mere question of logic is, that -while he requires the most rigorous demonstration of the existence of -what he defines as matter, he assumes an eternal spirit with various -attributes, and also creates spirits of various sorts. He creates the -states of mind resulting from the sensation of surrounding phenomena -into ideas, existing independent of the ego, when in truth, man's ideas -are not in addition to man's mind; but the aggregate of sensative -ability, and the result of its exercise is the mind, just as the -aggregate of functional ability and activity is life. The foundation of -Berkeley's faith in the invisible "eternal spirit," in angels as -"created spirits," is difficult to discover, when you accept his -argument for the rejection of visible phenomena. He in truth should have -rejected everything save his own mind, for the mental processes are -clearly not always reliable. In dreams, in delirium, in insanity, in -temporary disease of particular nerves of sensation, in some phases of -magnetic influence, the ideas which Berkeley sustains so forcibly are -admittedly delusions. - -As in George Berkeley, so we have in Bishop Butler, an illustration of -the endeavor to check the rapidly enlarging scepticism of this century. -Joseph Butler was born in 1692, died 1752, and will be long known by his -famous work on the "Analogy of Religion to the course of Nature." In -this place it is not our duty to do more than point out a few features -of the argument, observing that this elaborate piece of special pleading -for natural and revealed religion, is evidence that danger was -apprehended by the clergy, from the spread of Freethought views amongst -the masses. A popular reply was written to provide against the growing -popular objection. Bishop Butler argues that "we know that we are endued -with certain capacities of action, of happiness and misery; for we are -conscious of acting, of enjoying pleasure, and of suffering pain. Now -that we have these powers and capacities before death, is a presumption -that we shall retain them through and after death; indeed, a probability -of it abundantly sufficient to act upon, unless there be some positive -reason to think that death is the destruction of those living powers." -It may be fairly submitted, in reply, that here the argument from -analogy is as utterly faulty, as if in the spring season a traveller -should say of a wayside pool, it is here before the summer sun shines -upon it, and will be here during and after the summer drought, when -ordinary experience would teach him that as the pool is only gathered -during the rainy season in the hollow ground, so in the dry hot summer -days, it will be gradually evaporated under the blazing rays of the July -sun. As to the human capacities, experience teaches us that they have -changed with the condition of the body; emotional feelings and animal -passions, the gratification of which ensured temporary pleasure or pain, -have varied, have been newly felt, and have died out in different -periods and conditions of our lives, and the presumption is against the -complete endurance of all these "capacities for action," etc., even -during the whole life, and much more strongly, therefore, against their -endurance after death. Besides which--continuing the argument from -analogy--my "capacities" having only been manifested since my body has -existed, and in proportion to my physical ability, the presumption is -rather that the manifestation which commenced with the body will finish -as the body finishes. Further, it is fair to presume that "death is the -destruction of those living powers," for death is the cessation of -organic functional activity; a cessation consequent on some change or -destruction of organisation. Of course, the word "destruction" is not -here used in any sense of annihilation of substance, but as meaning such -a change of condition that vital phenomena are no longer manifested. -But, says Butler, "we know not at all what death is in itself, but only -some of its effects, such as the dissolution of flesh, skin, and bones, -and these effects do in nowise appear to imply the destruction of a -living agent." Here, perhaps, there is an unjustifiable assumption in -the words "living agent," for if by living agent is only meant the -animal which dies, then the destruction of flesh, skin, and bones does -fairly imply the destruction of the living agent, but if by living agent -is intended more than this, then the argument is speciously and unfairly -worded. But beyond this, if Bishop Butler's argument has any value, it -proves too much. He says: "Nor can we find anything throughout the whole -analogy of nature, to afford us even the slightest presumption that -animals ever lose their living powers... by death." That is, Bishop -Butler, applies his argument for a future state of existence, not only -to man, but to the whole animal kingdom; and it may be fairly conceded -that there is as much ground to presume that man will live again, as -there is that the worm will live again, which, being impaled upon a -hook, is eaten by the gudgeon, or that the gudgeon will live again -which, threadled as a bait, is torn and mangled to death by a ravenous -pike, or that the pike will live again after it has been kept out of -water till rigid, then gutted, scaled, stuffed with savory condiments, -broiled, and ultimately eaten by Piscator and his family. Bishop -Butler's argument that because pleasure or pain is uniformly found to -follow the acting or not acting in some particular manner, there is -presumptive analogy in favor of future rewards and punishments by Deity, -appears weak in the extreme. According to Butler, God is the author of -nature. Nature's laws are such, that punishment, immediate or remote, -follows nonobservance, and reward, more or less immediate, is the result -of observance; and because God is, by Butler's argument, assumed as the -author of nature, and has therefore already punished or rewarded once, -we are following Butler, to presume that he will after death punish or -reward again for an action upon which he has already adjudicated. In his -chapter on the Moral Government of God, Butler says: "As the manifold -appearances of design and of final causes in the constitution of the -world prove it to be the work of an intelligent mind, so the particular -final causes of pleasure and pain distributed amongst his creatures -prove that they are under his government--what may be called his natural -government of creatures endowed with sense and reason." But taking -Bishop Butler's own position, what sort of government is demonstrated by -this argument from analogy? God, according to Bishop Butler's reasoning, -designed the whale to swallow the Clio Borealis, which latter he -designed to be so swallowed, but which he nevertheless invested with -some 360,000 suckers, to enable it in its turn to seize the minute -animalculae on which it lives. God designed Brutus to kill Cesar, Orsini -to be beheaded by Louis Napoleon. These, according to Butler, would be -all under the special control of God's government. Bishop Butler's -theory that our present life is a state of trial and probation is met by -the difficulty, that while he assumes the justice and benevolence of God -as moral governor, he has the fact that many exist with organisations -and capacities so originally different, that it is manifestly most -unfair to put one and the same reward, or one and the same punishment -for all. The Esquimaux or Negro is not on a level at the outset of life -with the Caucasian races. How from analogy can anyone argue in favor of -the doctrine that an impartial judge who had started them in the race of -life unfairly matched, would put the same prize before all, none of the -starters being handicapped? Bishop Butler's argument on the doctrine of -necessity, is that which one might expect to find from a hired _nisi -prius_ advocate, but which is read with regret coming from the pen of a -gentleman who ought to be striving to convince his erring brethren by -the words of truth alone. He says, suppose a child to be educated from -his earliest youth in the principles of "fatalism," what then? The reply -is, that a necessitarian knowing that a certain education of the human -mind was most conducive to human happiness, would strive to impart to -his children education of that character. That a worse "fatalism" is -inculcated in the doctrine of a foreordaining and ever-directing -providence, planning and controlling every one of the child's actions, -than ever was taught in necessitarian essays. That the child would be -taught the laws of existence, and would be shown how certain conduct -resulted in pleasure, and certain other conduct was during life attended -with pain, and that the result of such teaching would be far more -efficacious in its moral results, than the inculcation of a present -responsibility, and an ultimate heaven and hell, in which latter -doctrine, nearly all Christians profess to believe, but nearly all act -as if it were not of the slightest consequence whether any such paradise -or infernal region exists. - -Henry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, born October 1, 1672, died November -15, 1751, may be taken as one of the school of polished deistical -writers, who, though comparatively few, fairly enough represents the -religious opinions of the large majority of the journalists of the -present day. In the course of Bolingbroke's "Letters on the Study of -History" a strong sceptical spirit is manifested, and he speaks in one -of "the share which the divines of all religions have taken in the -corruption of history." In another he thus deals with the question of -the Bible:--"It has been said by Abbadie, and others, 'that the -accidents which have happened to alter the texts of the Bible, and to -disfigure, if I may say so, the scriptures in many respects, could not -have been prevented without a perpetual standing miracle, and that a -perpetual standing miracle is not in the order of providence.' Now I can -by no means subscribe to this opinion. It seems evident to my reason -that the very contrary must be true; if we suppose that God acts towards -men according to the moral fitness of things; and if we suppose that he -acts arbitrarily, we can form no opinion at all. I think these accidents -would not have happened, or that the scriptures would have been -preserved entirely in their genuine purity notwithstanding these -accidents, if they had been entirely dictated by the Holy Ghost: and the -proof of this probable proposition, according to our clearest and most -distinct ideas of wisdom and moral fitness, is obvious and easy. But -these scriptures are not so come down to us: they are come down broken -and confused, full of additions, interpolations, and transpositions, -made we neither know when, nor by whom; and such, in short, as never -appeared on the face of any other book, on whose authority men have -agreed to rely. This being so, my lord, what hypothesis shall we follow? -Shall we adhere to some such distinction as I have mentioned? Shall we -say, for instance, that the scriptures were originally written by the -authors to whom they are vulgarly ascribed, but that these authors writ -nothing by inspiration, except the legal, the doctrinal, and the -prophetical parts, and that in every other respect their authority is -purely human, and therefore fallible? Or shall we say that these -histories are nothing more than compilations of old traditions, and -abridgements of old records, made in later times, as they appear to -every one who reads them without prepossession and with attention?" - -It has been alleged that Pope's verse is but another rendering of -Bolingbroke's views without his "aristocratic nonchalance," and that -some passages of Pope regarded as hostile to revealed religion, were -specially due to the influence of Bolingbroke; and more than one critic -has professed to trace identities of thought and expression in order to -show that Pope was largely indebted to the published works of St. John. - -David Hume was born at Edinburgh, 26th April, 1711, and died 1776. He -created a new school of Freethinkers, and is to-day one of the most -esteemed amongst sceptical authors. He was a profound thinker, and an -easy, elegant writer, who did much to give a force and solidity to -extreme heretical reasonings, which they had hitherto been regarded as -lacking. His heretical essays have had a far wider circulation since his -death than they enjoyed during his life. Many volumes have been issued -in the fruitless endeavor to refute him, and all these have contributed -to widen the circle of his readers. He adopted and advocated the -utilitarian and necessitarian theory of morals, and wrote of ordinary -theism and religion as arising from personification of unknown causes -for general or special phenomena. He held and advanced the idea, which -Buckle so fully states, and endeavors to prove in his "History of -Civilisation"--viz., that general laws operate amongst peoples, and -influence and determine their so-called moral conduct, much as other -laws do the orbits of planets, the occurrences of eclipses, etc. His -arguments against miracles, as evidences for revealed religion, remain -unrefuted, although they have been made the subject of many attacks. He -contends, in effect, that in each account of a miraculous occurrence -there is always more _prima facie_ probability of error, or bad faith on -the part of the narrator, than of interference with those invariable -sequences known as natural laws, and there was really no reply in the -conclusion of Dr. Campbell, to the effect that we have equally to trust -human testimony for an account of the laws of nature and for the -narratives of miracles, for in truth you never have the same character -of human testimony for the latter as for the former. And, further, while -in the case of human testimony as to natural events, it is evidence -which you may test and compare with your own experience. This is not so -as to miracles, declared at once to be out of the range of all ordinary -experience. "Men," he says, "are carried by a natural instinct or -prepossession to repose faith in their senses. When they follow this -blind and powerful instinct of nature, they always suppose the very -images presented to the senses to be the external objects, and never -entertain any suspicion that the one are nothing but representatives of -the other. But this universal and primary opinion of all men is soon -destroyed by the slightest philosophy, which teaches us that nothing can -ever be present to the mind but an image or perception. So far, then, we -are necessitated by reasoning to contradict the primary instincts of -nature, and to embrace a new system with regard to the evidence of our -senses. But here philosophy finds herself extremely embarrassed, when -she would obviate the cavils and objections of the sceptics. She can no -longer plead the infallible and irresistible instinct of nature, for -that led us to quite a different system, which is acknowledged fallible, -and even erroneous, and to justify this pretended philosophical system -by a chain of clear and convincing argument, or even any appearance of -argument, exceeds the power of all human capacity. Do you follow the -instinct and propensities of nature in assenting to the veracity of the -senses? But these lead you to believe that the very perception or -sensible image is the external object--(Idealism.) Do you disclaim this -principle in order to embrace a more rational opinion, that the -perceptions are only representations of something external? You here -depart from your natural propensities, and more obvious sentiments; and -yet are not able to satisfy your reason, which can never find any -convincing argument from experience to prove that the perceptions are -connected with external objects--(Scepticism.)" - -Charles de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu, born in 1689 near Bordeaux, -died at Paris 1755, who earned considerable fame by his "Lettres -Persanes," is more famous for his oft-referred to work "L'Esprit des -Lois." Victor Cousin describes him as "the man of our country who has -best comprehended history, and who first gave an example of true -historic method." In the publication of certain of his ideas on history, -Montesquieu was the layer of the foundation-stone for an edifice which -Buckle would probably have gloriously crowned had his life been longer. -Voltaire, who sharply criticises Montesquieu, declares that he has -earned the eternal gratitude of Europe by his grand views and his bold -attacks on tyranny, superstition, and grinding taxation. Montesquieu -urged that virtue is the true essence of republicanism, but misled by -the mistaken notions of honor held by his predecessors and -contemporaries, he declared honor to be the principle of monarchical -institutions. Voltaire reminds him that "it is in courts that men, -devoid of honor, often attain to the highest dignities; and it is in -republics that a known dishonorable citizen is seldom trusted by the -people with public concerns." Montesquieu wrote in favor of a -constitutional monarchy such as then existed in England, and his work -shadowed forth a future for the middle class in France. - -Francois Marie Arouet Voltaire, born 20th February, 1694, at Chatenay, -died 30th May, 1778, may be fairly written of as the man, to whose -fertile brain and active pen, to whose great genius, fierce irony, and -thorough humanity, we owe much more of the rapid change of popular -thought in Europe during the last century, than to any other man. His -wit, like the electric flash, spared nothing; his love for his kind -would have made him the protector of everything weak, his desire to -protect himself from the consequences of his truest utterances often -dims the hero-halo with which his name is surrounded. Born and trained -amongst a corrupt and selfish class, it is not wonderful that we find -some of their pernicious habits clinging to parts of his career. On the -contrary, it is more wonderful to find that he has shaken off so much of -the consequences of his education. Neither in politics nor in theology -was he so very extreme in his utterances as many deemed him, for while -he occasionally severely handled individual monarchs, we do not find him -the preacher of republicanism. On the contrary, he is often severe -against some of the advanced political views of Jean Jacques Rousseau. -He nevertheless suggests that it might have been "the art of working -metals which originally made kings, and the art of casting cannons which -now maintains them," and as a commentary on kingly conduct in the matter -of taxation, declares that "a shepherd ought to shear his sheep and not -to flay them." In theological controversy he wrote as a Theist, and -declares "Atheism and Fanaticism" to be "two monsters which may tear -Society in pieces, but the Atheist preserves his reason, which checks -his propensity to mischief, while the fanatic is under the influence of -a madness constantly urging him on." For the ancient Jews, and for the -Hebrew records, Voltaire entertained so thorough a feeling of -contemptuous detestation, that in his "Defense de mon Oncle," and his -articles and letters on the Jews, we find utter disbelief in them as a -chosen people, and the strongest abhorrence of their brutal habits, -heightened in expression by the scathing satire of his phrases. To the -more modern descendants of Abraham he said: "We have repeatedly driven -you away through avarice; we have recalled you through avarice and -stupidity; we still, in more towns than one, make you pay for liberty to -breathe the air; we have, in more kingdoms than one, sacrificed you to -God; we have burned you as holocausts--for I will not follow your -example, and dissemble that we have offered up sacrifices of human -blood; all the difference is, that our priests, content with applying -your money to their own use, have had you burned by laymen; while your -priests always immolated their human victims with their own sacred -hands. You were monsters of cruelty and fanaticism in Palestine; we have -been so in Europe." - -Writing on miracles, Voltaire asks: "For what purpose would God perform -a miracle? To accomplish some particular design upon living beings? He -would then, in reality, be supposed to say--I have not been able to -effect by my construction of the universe, by my divine decrees, by my -eternal laws, a particular object; I am now going to change my eternal -ideas and immutable laws, to endeavor to accomplish what I have not been -able to do by means of them. This would be an avowal of his weakness, -not of his power; it would appear in such a being an inconceivable -contradiction. Accordingly, therefore, to dare to ascribe miracles to -God is, if man can in reality insult God, actually offering him that -insult. It is saying to him--You are a weak and inconsistent being. It -is therefore absurd to believe in miracles; it is, in fact, dishonoring -the divinity." - -Those who are inclined to attack the character of Voltaire should read -the account of his endeavors for the Calas family. How, when old Calas -had been broken alive on the wheel at Toulouse, and his family were -ruined, Voltaire took up their case, aided them with means, spared no -effort of his pen or brain, and ultimately achieved the great victory of -reversing the unjust sentence, and obtaining compensation for the -family. If, then, these Voltaire-haters have not learned to love this -great heretic, let them study the narrative of his even more successful -endeavors on behalf of the Sirvens; more successful, because in this -case he took up the fight before an unjust judgment could be delivered, -and thus prevented the repetition of such an iniquitous execution as had -taken place in the Calas case. The cowardly slanders as to his conduct -when dying are not worth notice; those spit on the grave of the dead who -would not have dared to look in the face of the living. - -Claude Adrian Helvetius was born at Paris 1715, and died December, 1771. -His best known works are "De l'Esprit," published 1758: "Essai sur -l'Origine des Connaissances Humaines," 1746; "Traite des Systemes," -1749; "Traite des Sensations," 1758. Rousseau wrote in reply to -Helvetius, but when the Parliament of Paris condemned the work "De -l'Esprit," and it was in consequence burned by the common hangman, -Rousseau withdrew his refutatory volume. Helvetius argues that any -religion, of which the chiefs are intolerant, and the conduct of which -is expensive to the state, "cannot long be the religion of an -enlightened and well governed nation. The people that submit to it will -labor only to maintain the ease and luxury of the priesthood; each of -its inhabitants will be nothing more than a slave to the sacerdotal -power. A religion to be good should be tolerant and little expensive. -Its clergy should have no authority over the people. A dread of the -priest debases the mind and the soul, makes the one brutish and the -other slavish. Must the ministers of the altar always be armed with the -sword of the State? Can the barbarities committed by their intolerance -ever be forgotten? The earth is yet drenched with the blood they have -spilled. Civil tolerance alone is not sufficient to secure the peace of -nations. Every dogma is a seed of discord and injustice sown amongst -mankind." - -"Why do you make the Supreme Being resemble an eastern tyrant? Why make -him punish slight faults with eternal torment? Why thus put the name of -the Divinity at the bottom of the portrait of the devil? Why oppress the -soul with a load of fear, break its springs, and of a worshipper of -Jesus make a vile, pusillanimous slave? It is the malignant who paint a -malignant God. What is their devotion? A veil for their crimes." - -"Let not the rewards of heaven be made the price of trifling religious -operations, which convey a diminutive idea of the Eternal and a false -conception of virtue; its rewards should never be assigned to fasting, -haircloth, a blind submission, and self-castigation. The men who place -these operations among the virtues, might as well place those of -leaping, dancing, and tumbling on the rope." "Humility may be held in -veneration by the dwellers in a monastery or a convent, it favors the -meanness and idleness of a monastic life. But ought humility to be -regarded as the virtue of the people? No." Speaking of the Pagan -systems, Helvetius says: "All the fables of mythology were mere emblems -of certain principles of nature." - -Baron d'Holbach, a native of the Palatinate, born January 1723, died -21st January, 1789, deserves special notice, as being the man whose -house was the gathering place of the knot of writers and thinkers who -struck light and life into the dark and deadened brain of France. He is -generally reputed to have been the author of that well-known work, the -"System of Nature," which was issued as if by Mirabaud. This work, -although it was fiercely assailed at the time by the pen of Voltaire, -and by the _plaidorie_ of the prosecuting Avocat-General, and has since -been attacked by hundreds who had never read it, yet remains a -wonderfully popular exposition of the power-gathering heresy of the -century, and, as far as we are aware, has never received efficient -reply. Probably next to Paine's works, it had in England during the -second quarter of this century the widest circulation of any -anti-theological book, this circulation extending through the -manufacturing ranks. In the eighteenth century Mirabaud could, in -England, only be found in the hands of the few, but fifty years had -wondrously multiplied the number of readers. - -Joseph Priestley was born near Leeds, 13th March, 1733, and being -towards the latter part of his life driven out of England, by the -persecuting spirit evinced towards him, and which had been specially -excited by his republican tendencies, he died at Northumberland, -Pennsylvania, on the 6th February, 1804. Originally a Church of England -clergyman, his first notable inclination towards heterodoxy manifested -itself in hesitation as to the doctrine of the atonement. He ultimately -rejected the immortality and immateriality of the soul, argued for -necessitarianism, and earned considerable unpopularity by the boldness -of some of his sentiments on political as well as theological matters. -Priestley was one of the rapidly multiplying instances of heresy alike -in religion and politics, but he provoked the most bitter antagonism. -His works were burned by the common hangman, his house, library, and -scientific instruments were destroyed by an infuriate and pious mob. -Despite all this, his heresy, according to his own view of it, was not -of a very outrageous character, for he believed in Deity, in revealed -religion, and in Christianity, rather putting the blame on misconduct of -alleged Christians. He said: "The wretched forms under which -Christianity has long been generally exhibited, and its degrading -alliance with, or rather its subjection to, a power wholly heterogeneous -to it, and which has employed it for the most unworthy purposes, has -made it contemptible and odious in the eyes of all sensible men, who are -now everywhere casting off the very profession and every badge of it. -Enlightened Christians must themselves, in some measure, join with -unbelievers in exposing whatever will not bear examination in or about -religion." His writings on scientific topics were most voluminous; his -most heretical volumes are those on "Matter and Spirit." - -Edward Gibbon was born at Putney, the 27th April, 1737, and died 16th -January, 1794. He was a polished and painstaking writer, aristocratic in -his tendencies and associations, who had educated himself into a -disbelief in the principal dogmas of Christianity, but who loved the -peace and quietude of an easy life too much to enter the lists as an -active antagonist of the Church. His works, especially the fifteenth and -sixteenth chapters of "The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire," have -been regarded as infidel in their tendency, rather from what has been -left unsaid than from the direct statements against Christianity. The -sneer at the evidence of prophecy, or the doubt of the reality of -miraculous evidences, is guardedly expressed. It is only when Gibbon can -couch his lance against some reckless and impudent forger of Christian -evidences, such as Eusebius, that you have anything like a bold -condemnation. A prophecy or a miracle is treated tenderly, and if -killed, it is rather with over-affectionate courtesy than by rough -handling. In some parts of his vindications of the attacked passages, -Gibbon's scepticism finds vent in the collection and quotation of -unpleasantly heretical views of others, but he carefully avoids -committing himself to very distinct personal declarations of disbelief; -he claims to be the unbiased historian recording fact, and leaving -others to form their own conclusions. It would perhaps be most -appropriate to express his convictions as to the religions of the world, -in nearly the same words as those which he used to characterise the -various modes of worship at Rome: "All considered by the people as -equally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate -as equally useful." - -Pierre John George Cabanis, born at Conac, near Breves 5th June, 1757, -died 6th May, 1808, following Condillac in many respects, was one of -those whose physiological investigations have opened out wide fields of -knowledge in psychology, and who did much to promote the establishment -in France, America, and England, of a new school of Freethinkers. -"Subject to the action of external bodies," he says, "man finds in the -impressions these bodies make on his organs, at once his knowledge and -the causes of his continued existence, for to live is to feel; and in -that admirable chain of phenomena which constitute his existence, every -want depends on the development of some faculty; every faculty by its -very development satisfies some want, and the faculties grow by -exercise, as the wants extend with the facility of satisfying them. By -the continual action of external bodies on the senses of man, results -the most remarkable part of his existence. But is it true that the -nervous centres only receive and combine the impressions which reach -them from the bodies? Is it true that no image or idea is formed in the -brain, and that no determination of the sensative organ takes place, -other than by virtue of these same impressions on the senses strictly -so-called? The faculty of feeling and of spontaneous movement forms the -character of animal nature. The faculty of feeling consists in the -property possessed by the nervous system of being warned by the -impressions produced on its different parts, and notably on its -extremities. These impressions are internal or external. External -impressions, when perception is distinct, are called sensations. -Internal impressions are very often vague and confused, and the animal -is then only warned by their effects, and does not clearly distinguish -their connexion with the causes. The former result from the application -of external objects to the organs of sense, and on them ideas depend. -The latter result from the development of the regular functions, or from -the maladies to which each organ is subject; and from these issue those -determinations which bear the name of instincts. Feeling and movement -are linked together. Every movement is determined by an impression, and -the nerves, as the organs of feeling, animate and direct the motor -organs. In feeling, the nervous organ reacts on itself. In movement it -reacts on other parts, to which it communicates the contractile faculty, -the simple and fecund principle of all animal movement. Finally, the -vital functions can exercise themselves by the influence of some nervous -ramifications, isolated from the system--the instinctive faculties can -develop themselves, even when the brain is almost wholly destroyed, and -when it seems wholly inactive. But for the formation of thoughts, it is -necessary that the brain should exist, and be in a healthy condition; it -is the special organ of thought." - -Thomas Paine, the most famous Deist of modern times, was born at -Thetford, on the 29th January, 1737, and died 8th June, 1809. It will -hardly be untrue to say that the famous "rebellious needleman" has been -the most popular writer in Great Britain and America against revealed -religion, and that his works, from their plain clear language, have in -those countries had, and still have, a far wider circulation than those -of any other modern sceptical author. His anti-theology was allied to -his republicanism; he warred alike against church and throne, and his -impeachment of each was couched in the plainest Anglo-Saxon. His name -became at the same time a word of terror to the aristocracy and to the -clergy. In England numerous prosecutions were commenced against the -vendors of his political and theological works, and against persons -suspected of giving currency to his views. The peace-officers searched -poor men's houses to discover his dreaded works. Lancashire and -Yorkshire artisans read him by stealth, and assembled in corners of -fields that they might discuss the "Age of Reason," and yet be safe from -surprise by the authorities. Heavy sentences were passed upon men -convicted of promulgating his opinions; but all without effect, the -forbidden fruit found eager gatherers. Paine appears to have been tinged -with scepticism from his early boyhood, but it was as a democratic -writer that he first achieved literary fame. His "Age of Reason" was the -culminating blow which the dying eighteenth century aimed at the Hebrew -and Christian records. Theretofore scholarly philosophers, -metaphysicians, and critics had written for their fellows, and whether -or not any of the mass read and understood, the authors cared but -little. Now the people were addressed by one of themselves in language -startling in its plainness. Paine was not a deep examiner of -metaphysical problems, but he was terribly in earnest in his rejection -of an impossible creed. - -Charles Francois Dupuis was born near Chaumont, in France, the 16th Oct, -1742, died 29th Sept, 1809. He played a prominent part in the great -revolutionary movement, and was Secretary to the National Convention. -His famous work, "L'Origine de tous les Cultes," is one of the grand -heresy marks of the eighteenth century. Himself a Pantheist, he searched -through the mythic traditions of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus, -and the Hebrews, and as a result, sought to demonstrate a common origin -for all religions. Dr. John Pye Smith classes Dupuis as an Atheist, but -this is most certainly an incorrect classification. He did not believe -in creation, nor could he go outside the universe to search for its -cause, but he regarded God as _"la force universelle et eternellement -active,_ " which permeated and animated everything. Dupuis was an -example of a new and rapidly increasing class of Freethinking -writers--i.e., those who, not content with doubting the divine origin of -the religions they attacked, sought to explain the source and progress -of the various systems. He urges that all religions find their base in -the attempts at personification of some one or other, or of the whole of -the forces of the universe, and shows what an important part the sun and -moon have been made to play in the Egyptian, Greek, and Hindu -mythologies. He argues that the fabulous biographies of Hercules, -Bacchus, Osiris, Mithra, and Jesus, find their common origin in the -sun-worship, thus cloaked and hidden from the vulgar in each country. He -does not attack the Hebrew Records as simply inaccurate, but endeavors -to show clear Sabaistic foundation for many of the most important -narratives. The works of Dupuis and Dulaure should be read together; -they contain the most complete amongst the many attempts to trace out -the common origins of the various mythologies of the world. In the ninth -chapter of Dupuis' great work, he deals with the "fable made upon the -sun adored under the name of Christ," "_un dieu qui ait mange autrefois -sur la terre, et qu'on y mange aujourd'hui_" and unquestionably urges -strange points of coincidence. It is only astrologically that the 25th -of December can be fixed, he argues, as the birthday of Mithra and of -Jesus, then born of the celestial Virgin. Our Easter festivities for the -resurrection of Jesus are but another form of the more ancient rejoicing -at that season for Adonis, the sun-God, restored to the world after his -descent into the lower regions. He recalls that the ancient Druidic -worship recognised the Virgin suckling the child, and gathers together -many illustrations favorable to his theory. Here we do no more than -point out that while reason was rapidly releasing itself from priestly -thraldom, heretics were not content to deny the divine origin of -Christianity, but sought to trace its mundane or celestial source, and -strip it of its fabulous plumage. - -Constantine Francis Chasseboeuf Count Volney, born at Craon in Anjou, -February 3rd, 1757, died 1820. He was a Deist. In his two great works, -"The Ruins of Empires," and "New Researches on Ancient History," he -advances many of the views brought forward by Dupuis, from whom he -quotes, but his volumes are much more readable than those of the author -of the "Origin of all Religions." Volney appears to have been one of the -first to popularise many of Spinoza's Biblical criticisms. He denied the -Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He wrote most vigorously against -kingcraft as well as priestcraft, regarding all systems of monarchy and -religion as founded on the ignorance and servility, the superstition and -weakness of the people. He puts the following into the mouth of -Mahommedan priests replying to Christian preachers: "We maintain that -your gospel morality is by no means characterised by the perfection you -ascribe to it. It is not true that it has introduced into the world new -and unknown virtues; for example, the equality of mankind in the eyes of -God, and the fraternity and benevolence which are the consequence of -this equality, were tenets formerly professed by the sect of Hermetics -and Samaneans, from whom you have your descent. As to forgiveness of -injuries, it had been taught by the Pagans themselves; but in the -latitude you give to it, it ceases to be a virtue, and becomes an -immorality and a crime. Your boasted precept, to him that strikes thee -on thy right cheek turn the other also, is not only contrary to the -feelings of man, but a flagrant violation of every principle of justice; -it emboldens the wicked by impunity, degrades the virtuous by the -servility to which it subjects them; delivers up the world to disorder -and tyranny, and dissolves the bands of society--such is the true spirit -of your doctrine. The precepts and parables of your Gospel also never -represent God other than as a despot, acting by no rule of equity; than -as a partial father treating a debauched and prodigal son with greater -favor than his obedient and virtuous children; than as a capricious -master giving the same wages to him who has wrought but one hour, as to -those who have borne the burden and heat of the day, and preferring the -last comers to the first. In short, your morality throughout is -unfriendly to human intercourse; a code of misanthropy calculated to -give men a disgust for life and society, and attach them to solitude and -celibacy. With respect to the manner in which you have practised your -boasted doctrine, we in our turn appeal to the testimony of fact, and -ask, was it your evangelical meekness and forbearance which excited -those endless wars among your sectaries, those atrocious persecutions of -what you call heretics, those crusades against the Arians, the -Manichaeans, and the Protestants, not to mention those which you have -committed against us, nor the sacrilegious associations still subsisting -among you, formed of men who have sworn to perpetuate them?[1] Was it -the charity of your Gospel that led you to exterminate whole nations in -America, and to destroy the empires of Mexico and Peru; that makes you -still desolate Africa, the inhabitants of which you sell like cattle, -notwithstanding the abolition of slavery that you pretend your religion -has effected; that makes you ravage India whose domain you usurp; in -short, is it charity that has prompted you for three centuries past to -disturb the peaceful inhabitants of three continents, the most prudent -of whom, those of Japan and China, have been constrained to banish you -from their country, that they might escape your chains and recover their -domestic tranquillity?" - - [1] The oath taken by the Knights of the Order of Malta is to kill, or - make the Mahometans prisoners, for the glory of God. - -During the early part of the eighteenth century, magazines and other -periodicals began to grow apace, and pamphlets multiplied exceedingly in -this country. Addison, Steele, Defoe, and Dean Swift all helped in the -work of popular education, and often in a manner probably unanticipated -by themselves. Dean Swift's satire against scepticism was fiercely -powerful; but his onslaughts against Roman Catholics and Presbyterians -made far more sceptics than his other writings had made churchmen. - -During the latter portion of the eighteenth century, a new phase of -popular progress was exhibited in the comparatively lively interest -taken in political questions by the great body of the people inhabiting -large towns. In America, France, and England, this was strongly marked; -it is, however, in this country that we find special evidences of the -connexion between heresy and progress, as contradistinguished from -orthodoxy and obstructiveness, manifested in the struggle for the -liberty of the press and platform; a struggle in which some of the -boldest efforts were made by poor and heretical self-taught men. The -dying eighteenth century witnessed, in England, repeated instances of -State prosecutions, in which the charge of entertaining or advocating -the views of the Republican heretic, Paine, formed a prominent feature, -and there is little doubt that the efforts of the London Corresponding -Society (which the Government of the day made strenuous endeavors to -repress) to give circulation to some of Paine's political opinions in -Yorkshire, Lancashire, and the North, had for result the familiarising -many men with views they would have otherwise feared to investigate. The -step from the "Rights of Man" to the "Age of Reason" was but a short -stride for an advancing inquirer. In France the end of the eighteenth -century was marked by a frightful convulsion, but in the case of France, -the revolution was too sudden to be immediately beneficial or enduring, -the people were as a mass too poor, and therefore too ignorant, to wield -the power so rapidly wrested from the class who had so long monopolised -it. It is far better to grow out of a creed by the sure and gradual -consciousness of the truths of existence, than to dash off a religious -garb simply from abhorrence of the shameful practices of its professors, -or sudden conviction of the falsity of many of the testimonies in its -favor. So it is a more permanent and more complete revolution which is -effectuated by educating men to a sense of the majesty and worth of true -manhood, than is any mere sudden overturning a rotten or cruel -usurpation. Monarchies are most thoroughly and entirely destroyed--not -by pulling down the throne, or by decapitating the king, but by -educating and building up with a knowledge of political duty, each -individual citizen amongst the people. - -It is here that heresy has its great advantage. Christianity says: "The -powers that be are ordained of God, he that resisteth the power -resisteth the ordinance of God." Heresy challenges the divine right of -the governor, and declares that government should be the best -contrivance of national wisdom to promote the national weal, to provide -against national want, and alleviate national suffering--that government -which is only a costly machinery for conserving class privileges, and -preventing popular freedom, is a tyrannical usurpation of power, which -it is the duty of true men to destroy. - -I have briefly and imperfectly alluded to a few of the men who stand out -as the sign-posts of heretical progress during the sixteenth, -seventeenth, and eighteenth centuries; in some future publication of -wider scope fairer tribute may be paid to the memories of some of these -mighty warriors in the Freethought army. My object is to show that the -civilisation of the masses is in proportion to the spread of heresy -amongst them, that its effect is seen in an exhibition of manly dignity -and self-reliant effort which is utterly unattainable amongst a -superstitious people. Look at the lazzaroni of the Neapolitan States, or -the peasant of the Campagna, and you have at once the fearful -illustration of demoralisation by faith in the beggar, brigand, and -believer. - -It is sometimes pretended that such advantages of education and position -as the people may boast in England, their civil rights and social -advancement, are owing to their Christianity, but in point of fact the -reverse is the case. For centuries Christianity had done little but -fetter tightly the masses to Church and Crown, to Priest and Baron; the -enfranchisement is comparatively modern. Even in this very day, in the -districts where the people are entirely in the hands of the clergy of -the Established Church, there they are as a mass the most depraved. Take -the agricultural counties and the agricultural laborers: there are no -heretical books or papers to be seen in their cottages, no heretical -speakers come amongst them to disturb their contentment; the -deputy-lieutenant, the squire, and the rector wield supreme -authority--the parish church has no rival. But what are the people as a -mass? They are not men, they are not women; they lack men's and women's -thoughts and aspirations; they are diggers and weeders, hedgers and -ditchers, ploughmen and carters; they are taught to be content with the -state of life in which it has pleased God to place them. - -My plea is, that modern heresy, from Spinoza to Mill, has given -brain-strength and dignity to every one it has permeated--that the -popular propagandists of this heresy, from Bruno to Carlile, have been -the true redeemers and saviors, the true educators of the people. The -redemption is yet only at its commencement, the education only lately -begun, but the change is traceable already; as witness the power to -speak and write, and the ability to listen and read, which have grown -amongst the masses during the last hundred years. And if to-day we write -with higher hope, it is because the right to speak and the right to -print has been partly freed from the fetters forged through long -generations of intellectual prostration, and almost entirely freed from -the statutory limitations which, under pretence of checking blasphemy -and sedition, have really gagged honest speech against Pope and Emperor, -against Church and Throne. - - - - -HUMANITY'S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF - - -AS an unbeliever, I ask leave to plead that humanity has been real -gainer from scepticism, and that the gradual and growing rejection of -Christianity--like the rejection of the faiths which preceded it--has in -fact added, and will add, to man's happiness and well being. I maintain -that in physics science is the outcome of scepticism, and that general -progress is impossible without scepticism on matters of religion. I mean -by religion every form of belief which accepts or asserts the -supernatural. I write as a Monist, and use the word "nature" as meaning -all phenomena, every phenomenon, all that is necessary for the happening -of any and every phenomenon. Every religion is constantly changing, and -at any given time is the measure of the civilisation attained by what -Guizot described as the _juste milieu_ of those who profess it. Each -religion is slowly but certainly modified in its dogma and practice by -the gradual development of the peoples amongst whom it is professed. -Each discovery destroys in whole or part some theretofore cherished -belief. No religion is suddenly rejected by any people; it is rather -gradually out-grown. None see a religion die; dead religions are like -dead languages and obsolete customs; the decay is long and--like the -glacier march--is only perceptible to the careful watcher by comparisons -extending over long periods. A superseded religion may often be traced -in the festivals, ceremonies, and dogmas of the religion which has -replaced it. Traces of obsolete religions may often be found in popular -customs, in old wives' stories, and in children's tales. - -It is necessary, in order that my plea should be understood, that I -should explain what I mean by Christianity; and in the very attempt at -this explanation there will, I think, be found strong illustration of -the value of unbelief. Christianity in practice may be gathered from its -more ancient forms, represented by the Roman Catholic and the Greek -Churches, or from the various churches which have grown up in the last -few centuries. Each of these churches calls itself Christian. Some of -them deny the right of the others to use the word Christian. Some -Christian churches treat, or have treated, other Christian churches as -heretics or unbelievers. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants in -Great Britain and Ireland have in turn been terribly cruel one to the -other; and the ferocious laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth -centuries, enacted by the English Protestants against English and Irish -Papists, are a disgrace to civilisation. These penal laws, enduring -longest in Ireland, still bear fruit in much of the political mischief -and agrarian crime of to-day. It is only the tolerant indifference of -scepticism that, one after the other, has repealed most of the laws -directed by the Established Christian Church against Papists and -Dissenters, and also against Jews and heretics. Church of England -clergymen have in the past gone to great lengths in denouncing -nonconformity; and even in the present day an effective sample of such -denunciatory bigotry may be found in a sort of orthodox catechism -written by the Rev. F.A. Gace, of Great Barling, Essex, the popularity -of which is vouched by the fact that it has gone through ten editions. -This catechism for little children teaches that "Dissent is a great -sin," and that Dissenters "worship God according to their own evil and -corrupt imaginations, and not according to his revealed will, and -therefore their worship is idolatrous." Church of England Christians and -Dissenting Christians, when fraternising amongst themselves, often -publicly draw the line at Unitarians, and positively deny that these -have any sort of right to call themselves Christians. - -In the first half of the seventeenth century Quakers were flogged and -imprisoned in England as blasphemers; and the early Christian settlers -in New England, escaping from the persecution of Old World Christians, -showed scant mercy to the followers of Fox and Penn. It is customary, in -controversy, for those advocating the claims of Christianity, to include -all good done by men in nominally Christian countries as if such good -were the result of Christianity, while they contend that the evil which -exists prevails in spite of Christianity. I shall try to make out that -the ameliorating march of the last few centuries has been initiated by -the heretics of each age, though I quite concede that the men and women -denounced and persecuted as infidels by the pious of one century, are -frequently claimed as saints by the pious of a later generation. - -What then is Christianity? As a system or scheme of doctrine, -Christianity may, I submit, not unfairly be gathered from the Old and -New Testaments. It is true that some Christians to-day desire to escape -from submission to portions, at any rate, of the Old Testament; but this -very tendency seems to me to be part of the result of the beneficial -heresy for which I am pleading. Man's humanity has revolted against Old -Testament barbarism; and therefore he has attempted to disassociate the -Old Testament from Christianity. Unless Old and New Testaments are -accepted as God's revelation to man, Christianity has no higher claim -than any other of the world's many religions, if no such claim can be -made out for it apart from the Bible. And though it is quite true that -some who deem themselves Christians put the Old Testament completely in -the background, this is, I allege, because they are out-growing their -Christianity. Without the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus, -Christianity, as a religion, is naught; but unless the story of Adam's -fall is accepted, the redemption from the consequences of that fall -cannot be believed. Both in Great Britain and in the United States the -Old and New Testaments are forced on the people as part of Christianity; -for it is blasphemy at common law to deny the scriptures of the Old and -New Testaments to be of divine authority; and such denial is punishable -with fine and imprisonment, or even worse. The rejection of Christianity -intended throughout this paper, is therefore the rejection of the Old -and New Testaments as being of divine revelation. It is the rejection -alike of the authorised teachings of the Church of Rome and of the -Church of England, as these may be found in the Bible, the creeds, the -encyclicals, the prayer book, the canons and homilies of either or both -of these churches. It is the rejection of the Christianity of Luther, of -Calvin, and of Wesley. - -A ground frequently taken by Christian theologians is that the progress -and civilisation of the world are due to Christianity; and the -discussion is complicated by the fact that many eminent servants of -humanity have been nominal Christians, of one or other of the sects. My -allegation will be that the special services rendered to human progress -by these exceptional men, have not been in consequence of their adhesion -to Christianity, but in spite of it; and that the specific points of -advantage to human kind have been in ratio of their direct opposition to -precise Biblical enactments. - -A.S. Farrar says[2] that Christianity "asserts authority over religious -belief in virtue of being a supernatural communication from God, and -claims the right to control human thought in virtue of possessing sacred -books, which are at once the record and the instrument of the -communication, written by men endowed with supernatural inspiration." -Unbelievers refuse to submit to the asserted authority, and deny this -claim of control over human thought: they allege that every effort at -freethinking must provoke sturdier thought. - - [2] Farrar's "Critical History of Freethought". - -Take one clear gain to humanity consequent on unbelief, i.e., in the -abolition of slavery in some countries, in the abolition of the slave -trade in most civilised countries, and in the tendency to its total -abolition. I am unaware of any religion in the world which in the past -forbade slavery. The professors of Christianity for ages supported it; -the Old Testament repeatedly sanctioned it by special laws; the New -Testament has no repealing declaration. Though we are at the close of -the nineteenth century of the Christian era, it is only during the past -three-quarters of a century that the battle for freedom has been -gradually won. It is scarcely a quarter of a century since the famous -emancipation amendment was carried to the United States Constitution. -And it is impossible for any well-informed Christian to deny that the -abolition movement in North America was most steadily and bitterly -opposed by the religious bodies in the various States. Henry Wilson, in -his "Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America;" Samuel J. May, in his -"Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict;" and J. Greenleaf Whittier, -in his poems, alike are witnesses that the Bible and pulpit, the Church -and its great influence, were used against abolition and in favor of the -slave-owner. I know that Christians in the present day often declare -that Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of -slavery, and this because men professing Christianity were -abolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were -men and women whose humanity, recognising freedom for all, was in this -in direct conflict with Christianity. It is not yet fifty years since -the European Christian powers jointly agreed to abolish the slave trade. -What of the effect of Christianity on these powers in the centuries -which had preceded? The heretic Condorcet pleaded powerfully for freedom -whilst Christian France was still slave-holding. For many centuries -Christian Spain and Christian Portugal held slaves. Porto Rico freedom -is not of long date; and Cuban emancipation is even yet newer. It was a -Christian King, Charles 5th, and a Christian friar, who founded in -Spanish America the slave trade between the Old World and the New. For -some 1800 years, almost, Christians kept slaves, bought slaves, sold -slaves, bred slaves, stole slaves. Pious Bristol and godly Liverpool -less than 100 years ago openly grew rich on the traffic. During the -ninth century Greek Christians sold slaves to the Saracens. In the -eleventh century prostitutes were publicly sold as slaves in Rome, and -the profit went to the Church. - -It is said that William Wilberforce, the abolitionist, was a Christian. -But at any rate his Christianity was strongly diluted with unbelief. As -an abolitionist he did not believe Leviticus xxv, 44-6; he must have -rejected Exodus xxi, 2-6; he could not have accepted the many -permissions and injunctions by the Bible deity to his chosen people to -capture and hold slaves. In the House of Commons on 18th February, 1796, -Wilberforce reminded that Christian assembly that infidel and anarchic -France had given liberty to the Africans, whilst Christian and monarchic -England was "obstinately continuing a system of cruelty and injustice." - -Wilberforce, whilst advocating the abolition of slavery, found the whole -influence of the English Court, and the great weight of the Episcopal -Bench, against him. George III, a most Christian king, regarded -abolition theories with abhorrence, and the Christian House of Lords was -utterly opposed to granting freedom to the slave. When Christian -missionaries some sixty-two years ago preached to Demerara negroes under -the rule of Christian England, they were treated by Christian judges, -holding commission from Christian England, as criminals for so -preaching. A Christian commissioned officer, member of the Established -Church of England, signed the auction notices for the sale of slaves as -late as the year 1824. In the evidence before a Christian court-martial, -a missionary is charged with having tended to make the negroes -dissatisfied with their condition as slaves, and with having promoted -discontent and dissatisfaction amongst the slaves against their lawful -masters. For this the Christian judges sentenced the Demerara -abolitionist missionary to be hanged by the neck till he was dead. The -judges belonged to the Established Church; the missionary was a -Methodist. In this the Church of England Christians in Demerara were no -worse than Christians of other sects: their Roman Catholic Christian -brethren in St. Domingo fiercely attacked the Jesuits as criminals -because they treated negroes as though they were men and women, in -encouraging "two slaves to separate their interest and safety from that -of the gang," whilst orthodox Christians let them couple promiscuously -and breed for the benefit of their owners like any other of their -plantation cattle. In 1823 the _Royal Gazette_ (Christian) of Demerara -said: - -"We shall not suffer you to enlighten our slaves, who are by law our -property, till you can demonstrate that when they are made religious and -knowing they will continue to be our slaves." - -When William Lloyd Garrison, the pure-minded and most earnest -abolitionist, delivered his first anti-slavery address in Boston, -Massachusetts, the only building he could obtain, in which to speak, was -the infidel hall owned by Abner Kneeland, the "infidel" editor of the -_Boston Investigator_, who had been sent to gaol for blasphemy. Every -Christian sect had in turn refused Mr. Lloyd Garrison the use of the -buildings they severally controlled. Lloyd Garrison told me himself how -honored deacons of a Christian Church joined in an actual attempt to -hang him. - -When abolition was advocated in the United States in 1790, the -representative from South Carolina was able to plead that the Southern -clergy "did not condemn either slavery or the slave trade;" and Mr. -Jackson, the representative from Georgia, pleaded that "from Genesis to -Revelation" the current was favorable to slavery. Elias Hicks, the brave -Abolitionist Quaker, was denounced as an Atheist, and less than twenty -years ago a Hicksite Quaker was expelled from one of the Southern -American Legislatures, because of the reputed irreligion of these -abolitionist "Friends." - -When the Fugitive Slave Law was under discussion in North America, large -numbers of clergymen of nearly every denomination were found ready to -defend this infamous law. Samuel James May, the famous abolitionist, was -driven from the pulpit as irreligious, solely because of his attacks on -slaveholding.[3] Northern clergymen tried to induce "silver tongued" -Wendell Philips to abandon his advocacy of abolition. Southern pulpits -rang with praises for the murderous attack on Charles Sumner. The -slayers of Elijah Lovejoy were highly reputed Christian men. - - [3] "Capital and Wages," p. 19. - -Guizot, notwithstanding that he tries to claim that the Church exerted -its influence to restrain slavery, says ("European Civilisation," vol. -i, p. 110): - -"It has often been repeated that the abolition of slavery among modern -people is entirely due to Christians. That, I think, is saying too much. -Slavery existed for a long period in the heart of Christian society, -without its being particularly astonished or irritated. A multitude of -causes, and a great development in other ideas and principles of -civilisation, were necessary for the abolition of this iniquity of all -iniquities." - -And my contention is that this "development in other ideas and -principles of civilisation" was long retarded by Governments in which -the Christian Church was dominant. The men who advocated liberty were -imprisoned, racked, and burned, so long as the Church was strong enough -to be merciless. - -The Rev. Francis Minton, Rector of Middlewich, in his recent earnest -volume on the struggles of labor, admits that "a few centuries ago -slavery was acknowledged throughout Christendom to have the divine -sanction.... Neither the exact cause, nor the precise time of the -decline of the belief in the righteousness of slavery can be defined. It -was doubtless due to a combination of causes, one probably being as -indirect as the recognition of the greater economy of free labor. With -the decline of the belief the abolition of slavery took place." - -The institution of slavery was actually existent in Christian Scotland -in the 17th century, where the white coal workers and salt workers of -East Lothian were chattels, as were their negro brethren in the Southern -States thirty years since; they "went to those who succeeded to the -property of the works, and they could be sold, bartered, or pawned."[4] -"There is," says J.M. Robertson, "no trace that the Protestant clergy of -Scotland ever raised a voice against the slavery which grew up before -their eyes. And it was not until 1799, after republican and irreligious -France had set the example, that it was legally abolished." - - [4] "Perversion of Scotland," p. 197. - -Take further the gain to humanity consequent on the unbelief, or rather -disbelief, in witchcraft and wizardry. Apart from the brutality by -Christians towards those suspected of witchcraft, the hindrance to -scientific initiative or experiment was incalculably great so long as -belief in magic obtained. The inventions of the past two centuries, and -especially those of the 18th century, might have benefitted mankind much -earlier and much more largely, but for the foolish belief in witchcraft -and the shocking ferocity exhibited against those suspected of -necromancy. After quoting a large number of cases of trial and -punishment for witchcraft from official records in Scotland, J.M. -Robertson says: "The people seem to have passed from cruelty to cruelty -precisely as they became more and more fanatical, more and more devoted -to their Church, till after many generations the slow spread of human -science began to counteract the ravages of superstition, the clergy -resisting reason and humanity to the last." - -The Rev. Mr. Minton[5] concedes that it is "the advance of knowledge -which has rendered the idea of Satanic agency through the medium of -witchcraft grotesquely ridiculous." He admits that "for more than 1500 -years the belief in witchcraft was universal in Christendom," and that -"the public mind was saturated with the idea of Satanic agency in the -economy of nature." He adds: "If we ask why the world now rejects what -was once so unquestioningly believed, we can only reply that advancing -knowledge has gradually undermined the belief." - - [5] "Capital and Wages," pp. 15, 16. - -In a letter recently sent to the _Pall Mall Gazette_ against modern -Spiritualism, Professor Huxley declares, "that the older form of the -same fundamental delusion--the belief in possession and in -witchcraft--gave rise in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth -centuries to persecutions by Christians of innocent men, women, and -children, more extensive, more cruel, and more murderous than any to -which the Christians of the first three centuries were subjected by the -authorities of pagan Rome." - -And Professor Huxley adds: "No one deserves much blame for being -deceived in these matters. We are all intellectually handicapped in -youth by the incessant repetition of the stories about possession and -witchcraft in both the Old and the New Testaments. The majority of us -are taught nothing which will help us to observe accurately and to -interpret observations with due caution." - -The English Statute Book under Elizabeth and under James was disfigured -by enactments against witchcraft passed under pressure from the -Christian churches, which Acts have only been repealed in consequence of -the disbelief in the Christian precept, "thou shalt not suffer a witch -to live." The statute 1 James I, c. 12, condemned to death "all persons -invoking any evil spirits, or consulting, covenanting with, -entertaining, employing, feeding, or rewarding any evil spirit" or -generally practising any "infernal arts." This was not repealed until -the eighteenth century was far advanced. Edison's phonograph would 280 -years ago have insured martyrdom for its inventor; the utilisation of -electric force to transmit messages around the world would have been -clearly the practice of an infernal art. At least we may plead that -unbelief has healed the bleeding feet of science, and made the road free -for her upward march. - -Is it not also fair to urge the gain to humanity which has been apparent -in the wiser treatment of the insane, consequent on the unbelief in the -Christian doctrine that these unfortunates were examples either of -demoniacal possession or of special visitation of deity? For centuries -under Christianity mental disease was most ignorantly treated. Exorcism, -shackles, and the whip were the penalties rather than the curatives for -mental maladies. From the heretical departure of Pinel at the close of -the last century to the position of Maudsley to-day, every step -illustrates the march of unbelief. Take the gain to humanity in the -unbelief not yet complete, but now largely preponderant, in the dogma -that sickness, pestilence, and famine were manifestations of divine -anger, the results of which could neither be avoided nor prevented. The -Christian Churches have done little or nothing to dispel this -superstition. The official and authorised prayers of the principal -denominations, even to-day, reaffirm it. Modern study of the laws of -health, experiments in sanitary improvements, more careful applications -of medical knowledge, have proved more efficacious in preventing or -diminishing plagues and pestilence than have the intervention of the -priest or the practice of prayer. Those in England who hold the old -faith that prayer will suffice to cure disease are to-day termed -"peculiar people" and are occasionally indicted for manslaughter when -their sick children die, because the parents have trusted to God instead -of appealing to the resources of science. - -It is certainly a clear gain to astronomical science that the Church -which tried to compel Galileo to unsay the truth has been overborne by -the growing unbelief of the age, even though our little children are yet -taught that Joshua made the sun and moon stand still, and that for -Hezekiah the sun-dial reversed its record. As Buckle, arguing for the -morality of scepticism, says:[6] - - [6] "History of Civilisation," vol. i, p. 345. - -"As long as men refer the movements of the comets to the immediate -finger of God, and as long as they believe that an eclipse is one of the -modes by which the deity expresses his anger, they will never be guilty -of the blasphemous presumption of attempting to predict such -supernatural appearances. Before they could dare to investigate the -causes of these mysterious phenomena, it is necessary that they should -believe, or at all events that they should suspect, that the phenomena -themselves were capable of being explained by the human mind." - -As in astronomy so in geology, the gain of knowledge to humanity has -been almost solely in measure of the rejection of the Christian theory. -A century since it was almost universally held that the world was -created 6,000 years ago, or at any rate, that by the sin of the first -man, Adam, death commenced about that period. Ethnology and Anthropology -have only been possible in so far as, adopting the regretful words of -Sir W. Jones, "intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt -the authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses concerning the -primitive world." - -Surely it is clear gain to humanity that unbelief has sprung up against -the divine right of kings, that men no longer believe that the monarch -is "God's anointed" or that "the powers that be are ordained of God." In -the struggles for political freedom the weight of the Church was mostly -thrown on the side of the tyrant. The homilies of the Church of England -declare that "even the wicked rulers have their power and authority from -God," and that "such subjects as are disobedient or rebellious against -their princes disobey God and procure their own damnation." It can -scarcely be necessary to argue to the citizens of the United States of -America that the origin of their liberties was in the rejection of faith -in the divine right of George III. - -Will any one, save the most bigoted, contend that it is not certain gain -to humanity to spread unbelief in the terrible doctrine that eternal -torment is the probable fate of the great majority of the human family? -Is it not gain to have diminished the faith that it was the duty of the -wretched and the miserable to be content with the lot in life which -providence had awarded them? - -If it stood alone it would be almost sufficient to plead as -justification for heresy the approach towards equality and liberty for -the utterance of all opinions achieved because of growing unbelief. At -one period in Christendom each Government acted as though only one -religious faith could be true, and as though the holding, or at any rate -the making known, any other opinion was a criminal act deserving -punishment. Under the one word "infidel," even as late as Lord Coke, -were classed together all who were not Christians, even though they were -Mahommedans, Brahmins, or Jews. All who did not accept the Christian -faith were sweepingly denounced as infidels and therefore _hors de la -loi_. One hundred and forty-five years since, the Attorney-General, -pleading in our highest court, said:[7] "What is the definition of an -infidel? Why, one who does not believe in the Christian religion. Then a -Jew is an infidel." And English history for several centuries prior to -the Commonwealth shows how habitually and most atrociously Christian -kings, Christian courts, and Christian churches, persecuted and harassed -these infidel Jews. There was a time in England when Jews were such -infidels that they were not even allowed to be sworn as witnesses. In -1740 a legacy left for establishing an assembly for the reading of the -Jewish scriptures was held to be void[8] because it was "for the -propagation of the Jewish law in contradiction to the Christian -religion." It is only in very modern times that municipal rights have -been accorded in England to Jews. It is barely thirty years since they -have been allowed to sit in Parliament. In 1851, the late Mr. Newdegate -in debate[9] objected "that they should have sitting in that House an -individual who regarded our Redeemer as an impostor." Lord Chief Justice -Raymond has shown[10] how it was that Christian intolerance was -gradually broken down. "A Jew may sue at this day, but heretofore he -could not; for then they were looked upon as enemies, but now commerce -has taught the world more humanity." - - [7] Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns 29. - - [8] D'Costa v. D'Pays, Amb. 228. - - [9] 3 Hansard cxvi, 381. - - [10] Lord Raymond's reports 282, Wells v. Williams. - -Lord Coke treated the infidel as one who in law had no right of any -kind, with whom no contract need be kept, to whom no debt was payable. -The plea of alien infidel as answer to a claim was actually pleaded in -court as late as 1737.[11] In a solemn judgment, Lord Coke says:[12] - - [11] Ramkissenseat v Barker, 1 Atkyns 51. - - [12] Coke's reports, Calvin's case. - -"All infidels are in law _perpetui inimici_; for between them, as with -the devils whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual -hostility." Twenty years ago the law of England required the writer of -any periodical publication or pamphlet under sixpence in price to give -sureties for L800 against the publication of blasphemy. I was the last -person prosecuted in 1868 for non-compliance with that law, which was -repealed by Mr. Gladstone in 1869. Up till the 23rd December, 1888, an -infidel in Scotland was only allowed to enforce any legal claim in court -on condition that, if challenged, he denied his infidelity. If he lied -and said he was a Christian, he was accepted, despite his lying. If he -told the truth and said he was an unbeliever, then he was practically an -outlaw, incompetent to give evidence for himself or for any other. -Fortunately all this was changed by the Royal assent to the Oaths Act on -24th December. Has not humanity clearly gained a little in this struggle -through unbelief? - -For more than a century and a half the Roman Catholic had in practice -harsher measure dealt out to him by the English Protestant Christian, -than was even during that period the fate of the Jew or the unbeliever. -If the Roman Catholic would not take the oath of abnegation, which to a -sincere Romanist was impossible, he was in effect an outlaw, and the -"jury packing" so much complained of to-day in Ireland is one of the -habit survivals of the old bad time when Roman Catholics were thus by -law excluded from the jury box. - -_The Scotsman_ of January 5th, 1889, notes that in 1860 the Rev. Dr. -Robert Lee, of Greyfriars, gave a course of Sunday evening lectures on -Biblical Criticism, in which he showed the absurdity and untenableness -of regarding every word in the Bible as inspired; and it adds: - -"We well remember the awful indignation such opinions inspired, and it -is refreshing to contrast them with the calmness with which they are now -received. Not only from the pulpits of the city, but from the press -(misnamed religious) were his doctrines denounced. And one eminent U.P. -minister went the length of publicly praying for him, and for the -students under his care. It speaks volumes for the progress made since -then, when we think in all probability Dr. Charteris, Dr. Lee's -successor in the chair, differs in his teaching from the Confession of -Faith much more widely than Dr. Lee ever did, and yet he is considered -supremely orthodox, whereas the stigma of heresy was attached to the -other all his life." - -And this change and gain to humanity is due to the gradual progress of -unbelief, alike inside and outside the Churches. Take from differing -Churches two recent illustrations: The late Principal Dr. Lindsay -Alexander, a strict Calvinist, in his important work on "Biblical -Theology" claims that "all the statements of Scripture are alike to be -deferred to as presenting to us the mind of God." - -Yet the Rev. Dr. of Divinity also says: - -"We find in their writings [i.e., in the writings of the sacred authors] -statements which no ingenuity can reconcile with what modern research -has shown to be the scientific truth--i.e., we find in them statements -which modern science proves to be erroneous." - -At the last Southwell Diocesan Church of England Conference at Derby, -the Bishop of the Diocese presiding, the Rev. J.G. Richardson said of -the Old Testament that "it was no longer honest or even safe to deny -that this noble literature, rich in all the elements of moral or -spiritual grandeur, given--so the Church had always taught, and would -always teach--under the inspiration of Almighty God, was sometimes -mistaken in its science, was sometimes inaccurate in its history, and -sometimes only relative and accommodatory in its morality. It assumed -theories of the physical world which science had abandoned and could -never resume; it contained passages of narrative which devout and -temperate men pronounced discredited, both by external and internal -evidence; it praised, or justified, or approved, or condoned, or -tolerated, conduct which the teaching of Christ and the conscience of -the Christian alike condemned." - -Or, as I should urge, the gain to humanity by unbelief is that "the -teaching of Christ" has been modified, enlarged, widened, and humanised, -and that "the conscience of the Christian" is in quantity and quality -made fitter for human progress by the ever increasing additions of -knowledge of these later and more heretical days. - - - - -SUPERNATURAL AND RATIONAL MORALITY - - -THE essential of all religion is supernaturalism, and every religious -system therefore involves at least dualism; as creator and created, -ruler and ruled. This definition would, of course, exclude Pantheism -from consideration as a religion. Supernaturalism is for a rationalist a -word of self-contradiction. Nature to him means all phenomena, and all -that is necessary to the happening of every phenomenon; that is, nature -is the equivalent of everything. To the rationalist there can be nothing -supernatural. He is a Monist. There is, he affirms, one existence; he -knows only its phenomena. These phenomena he distinguishes in thought by -their varying characteristics. To the rationalist the word "create" in -the sense of absolute origin of substance is a word without meaning. He -cannot think totality of existence increased or non-existent. -"Substance," "existence," "matter," is to him the totality: known, and, -as far as he can yet think, knowable only in its phenomena. - -It has been assumed so generally by religious advocates that some -theologic dogma is necessary to every system of morality that the -assumption needs direct traverse. It is put to-day by many of those who -are attacking secular education for the young that without religious -teaching there is no morality possible. This inaccuracy of speech is the -result of centuries of supernaturalistic bias. Buckle considers -Charron's "Treatise on Wisdom" as the first "attempt made in a modern -language to construct a system of morals without the aid of theology." -Charron says (Book II, chap. 5, sec. 4) that moral duties "are purely -the result of a reasonable and thinking mind." - -It will be contended here that every system of "supernatural" morality -is necessarily uncertain, arbitrary, and confusing. That moral progress -is only made in the ratio in which supernaturalism is diminished. - -THE RATIONALIST VIEW - -To the rationalist that act is moral which tends to the greatest -happiness of the greatest number of the human family with the least -injury to any. That is, the test of the morality of any act is its -utility. The experience of all ages, collated and classified by the most -careful and accurate amongst investigators and profound thinkers, and -checked and verified by each day's new discoveries and newer -speculations, furnishes each individual with a sufficient but not -infallible moral guide. Morality is social; that is, all acts are moral -which tend to promote, build up, and ensure the permanent well being of -society. Tendencies to moral conduct are transmitted partly by the -training of the young by those already with recognised habit of life, -and partly by the influence of heredity. In England Jeremy Bentham and -John Stuart Mill have been chiefly identified with the modern -affirmation of this utilitarian theory, and R. Hildreth, the translator -of Dumont's "Bentham," says: "Whatever may be thought of the principle -of utility, when considered as the foundation of morals, no one -now-a-days will undertake to deny that it is the only safe rule of -legislation." Theologians object to the rationalist presentment of -morality: (a) That, according to the rationalist, morality varies, or, -(b) that at any rate the conceptions of morality vary. That with -different persons, therefore, there may be different views of what is -moral, and there being no reliable, unchangeable, and definite standard, -the rationalist position is chaotic. (c) The theologian asks, who is to -judge on each act, whether or not it is moral? and (d) the theologian -alleges that the measure of rational morality is the equivalent of mere -individual selfishness, i.e. that the rationalist only seeks his own -happiness, that is, only seeks to gratify his own desires. - -The rationalist answers (a) that the test of rational morality never -varies; that the ability to apply the test does vary with the higher -education of the masses. (b) That the standard, though not infallible, -is sufficiently reliable for everyday life, and that rationalists seek -each day to improve the efficiency of the standard by enforcing -generally more accurate knowledge of life-conditions, thus developing a -sound healthy public opinion. (c) Each individual must judge for herself -or himself, and therefore should be well taught, or at least should have -fair opportunity of being well taught, and should be encouraged to be -well taught. It follows from this that morality develops with education. -Immorality and ignorance are inseparable. (d) That if it be selfish to -desire personal happiness, knowing that to permanently secure such -happiness it is necessary to always promote the happiness of the -majority, avoiding injury to any, then the rational moralist must be -content to be called selfish. He suggests that if there is anything in -the objection, it equally, if not with greater force, applies to the -Christian supernaturalist who desires to be eternally happy though he -knows that "few are chosen," and that "many shall strive to enter in and -shall not be able." - -THE SUPERNATURAL VIEW - -That act is moral which is in obedience to or in accord with the -commands of deity. That these commands are known (a) by direct -revelation from God; or (b) through the human conscience, which it is -alleged is implanted by God in each individual, and which infallibly -decides for each person what acts are right and what are wrong. - -"For those who believe in the God of Christian morality," says the Rev. -J. Llewellyn Davies, in the preface to his discourses on social -questions, "the ultimate sources and rule of morality can be no other -than His will;" and Mr. Davies contends that rationalists "can find no -scientific basis for duty, no adequate explanation of conscience." - -The rationalist objects (a) that the commands of deity must be expressed -either (1) to individuals or (2) to the whole race. In the first case -the rationalist asks, How is it to be determined when any individual is -reliable who professes to be the recipient and interpreter of God's -commands? In the second case he asks, Is it conceivable that any such -command should have been given to the whole human race without its most -complete recognition on the part of the recipients? When an individual -claims to be the medium of transmission of divine communication, how is -his claim to be tested? How is it clear that the communication was made? -that the individual understood it? and that he has correctly interpreted -it? If by the quality of the communication he makes, then by what -standard is the quality to be judged? The Mahdi claimed to be God-sent; -Joseph Smith declared himself charged with a special revelation; so did -Mahomet; so did Jesus. How, in either case, is it to be determined -whether the prophet is sane and truthful? Is it to be decided by the -numbers who accepted or rejected the prophet? and if yes, at what date -or within what limits does the numerical strength become material? There -are more Mormons now than there were Christians within a like period. -Mahomedanism in some countries would poll an overwhelming majority. -Buddhism counts to-day far more heads than can be claimed for -Christianity. And what is called Christianity is subdivisible into many -sects as hostile to each other, though Christian, as the Christian is to -the Mahomedan. - -There is most certainly no one revelation to the whole race universally -admitted to be the revealed command of God. It is asserted by some that -the Bible is such a revelation, but the large majority of the world's -inhabitants do not now accept it: the largest proportion of the human -family have never accepted it. And even of the minority who nominally -accept the Bible as God's revelation, there are many, calling themselves -Christians, who declare that the Old Testament is now very imperfect as -a moral guide, and that it was only given to the Jews on account of the -hardness of their hearts; whilst the Jews on the other hand entirely -reject the New Testament. Christians are divided into Roman Catholics -and Protestants. The latter say, or at any rate in majority say, that -the Bible is an infallible moral guide. Roman Catholics deny that the -Bible is a rule of faith except under the interpretation of the Church. -Protestants are divided as to the value of various versions and -translations, and as to the extent to which the Old Testament is to be -regarded as superseded by the New. Even in the Church of England there -is an authorised version and a revised improvement as yet unauthorised. - -(b) The rationalist further objects that what is described by the -supernaturalist as the human conscience is not a special faculty, -unvarying and identical in all, but that it is in each individual a -variable result of heredity, organisation, education, and general -life-surroundings, enabling judgment by the individual on the -consequence of events; that it affords no reliable clue to what is -moral, for the general judgments of public conscience as embodied in -public opinion, or in statute law, have varied in the same country in -different ages to the extent sometimes of absolute and irreconcileable -contradiction. That the individual conscience, so-called, varies in the -same individual at different periods of his life and under different -conditions of health. That at the present moment the judgments of -conscience are on most material points in direct conflict in different -parts of the world. Two hundred and fifty years ago it was moral in -England to believe in witches, and it was a moral act to kill a witch. -To-day it is held immoral to believe in witchcraft; to kill a witch -would now be at law a criminal act. Witchcraft is so admittedly false -that palmistry, conjuring, and fortune-telling are treated as punishable -frauds. Yet from the supernatural point of view the reality of -witchcraft is unquestionable, and the praiseworthiness of witchkilling -is indisputable (_vide_ Exodus xxii, 18; Leviticus xix, 26-31, xx, 27; -Deut. xviii, 10, 11; 1 Sam. xxviii). And in some of the districts of -England where school boards are yet without influence and where godless -education has been prevented, the pious ignorant folk still believe in -charms, wise women, and white and black magic. - -One hundred years ago it was moral to trade in slaves, to own slaves, -and to breed slaves. Even twenty-five years ago it was moral to own and -breed slaves in the United States of America. Pious Bristol -slave-traders in the 18th century endowed churches from the profits of -their commerce. To-day slave-holding is not only punishable by law, but -the theory of slavery is indignantly repudiated by all decent English -folk. And yet supernaturalism maintained and legalised slavery -(Leviticus xxv, 44-46). Wilberforce, the English abolitionist, himself a -professing Christian, noting that infidel France had set its negroes -free, asked in the House of Commons, on February 11th, 1796: "What would -some future historian say in describing two great nations, the one -accused of promoting anarchy and confusion and every human misery, yet -giving liberty to the African; the other country contending for -religion, morality, and justice, yet obstinately continuing a system of -cruelty and injustice?" In the American Congress, in 1790, the -representative of South Carolina affirmed that the clergy did not -condemn either slavery or the slave-trade, and Mr. Jackson, of Georgia, -maintained that religion was not against slavery. On the 4th September, -1835, the Courier, Charleston, South Carolina, reports that at the -celebrated pro-slavery meeting held there, "the clergy of all -denominations attended in a body, lending their sanction to the -proceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive character of -the scene." The rationalist asks, What was it that the consciences of -these Christian men said on the subject of slavery only fifty years ago? -Even in Boston, Massachusetts, William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist, -though an earnest Christian, was shut out of Christian society; and the -only building in that city of many churches in which he was at first -allowed to publicly plead for the abolition of slavery was a hall owned -by Abner Kneeland, an infidel who had been convicted and sent to gaol as -a blasphemer. Why for centuries did Christians trade in slaves, if -supernatural morality is dependent on the immutable judgments of a -God-ordained conscience? Why, if slavery was defensible by supernatural -moralists only twenty-five years ago, has it now become utterly -indefensible? - -In England it is immoral to marry the sister of your deceased wife, and -the immorality is so clear and flagrant that any children born of such a -marriage are bastardized, and in the event of an intestacy are excluded -from sharing the property of either of the parents. In Canada it is -moral to marry your deceased wife's sister, and the children are -respected as legitimate. A few years ago a great supernaturalist, a -leader in the religious body to which he belonged, an eloquent preacher, -an otherwise good man, desired to marry his deceased wife's sister. It -being immoral in this country he went abroad to another country where -the act was moral, and there he married. The rationalist asks, How is -this explicable from the supernatural standpoint? - -In any part of Great Britain or Ireland it is immoral to have more than -one wife, and the law will punish the parties to the union and put -disabilities on the issue. In India, under British law, it is moral to -have more than one wife, and the Christian law-courts sitting in London -will recognise the children of that union. Christian supernaturalists -will admit: That good men like Abraham had more than one wife; that -specially-rewarded men like David practised polygamy; but they say that -this is an old practice, which, though once good, is no longer to be -followed. - -In England it is clearly immoral for one man to prepare and use dynamite -or other explosives so as to destroy the life and property of -Englishmen. But in England it is as clearly moral for men in the -Woolwich government laboratory to prepare and use similar explosives to -blow to pieces people in Egypt, the Soudan, or elsewhere. The morality -is vouched by the fact that an archbishop issues a special prayer to be -offered in all the churches for the success of the expedition carrying -the explosives. - -Belief is moral from the supernatural standpoint; unbelief immoral and -punishable. The rationalist says that the varying beliefs of the world -are the natural result of organisation of transmitted traditions and -present life-surroundings; that beliefs are not criminal even when they -are erroneous, and that wrong beliefs should be met by refutation, not -by punishment. - -The rationalist affirms that there are only two logical standpoints; -one, that of submission of opinion to arbitrary authority. This, in -Christianity, is the position of the church of Rome. The other, that of -the assertion of the right and duty of private judgment. - -The Christian supernaturalist has, in England, considerably modified, in -recent times, his action on the immorality of unbelief. In the time of -Lord Coke a Turk was an infidel with whom no agreement was binding. From -the reign of William III, until late in the reign of George III, -Unitarianism was a crime by act of Parliament. - -Until late in the reign of George IV Roman Catholicism was a crime -punishable by law. Until 1859 a Jew was considered sufficiently wicked -to be deprived of many civil rights. Two hundred and thirty years ago -Quakers were immoral men, and as such were publicly whipped. - -The supernaturalist recommends right conduct that you may be rewarded -when you are dead. The rationalist recommends right conduct because in -increasing the present total of human happiness you increase your own -happiness now, and render future happiness more easily attainable by -others. - -These are only a few of many like-charactered illustrations which -entitle the rationalist to return on the supernaturalist the weight of -the Rev. J. Llewellyn Davies' above-quoted contention. - - - - -HAS MAN A SOUL? - - -THE first step in this inquiry is to define what is meant; by the word -"soul," and the initial difficulty is that it is much easier to agree -with theologians upon what is not meant than upon what is meant. -Sometimes orthodox talkers seem to confuse "soul" with "life" and -"mind," and they use "soul" or "spirit" as if expressing contrast with -"matter." To at least prevent, as much as possible, misapprehension of -our own meaning, we shall try to define each word. - -Limiting here the use of the word "life" to the animal kingdom, it is -defined to mean the total organic functional activity of each animal. -Accepting this definition, "life" will express a variable result not -only in each individual, but in the same individual in childhood, prime, -or old age. Life is not an entity, it is the state of an organised body -in which the organs perform their individual and collective functions. -When all the organs do this efficiently, we call this state health; when -some of the organs fail, or do too much, we call this disease; when all -the organs permanently cease to perform their functions, we call this -death. Life, then, is a state of the body; health and disease are phases -of life; death is the termination of life. Life is the word by which we -describe the result of a certain collocation; but this does not imply -that life can be predicated of any or all the components taken -separately. By the life of an animal is meant the existence of that -animal; when dead, the animal no longer exists; the substance of what -was the animal thenceforth exists in other modes, but the organism has -ceased. The life of each animal is as distinct from that of each other -animal as is the weight or size of each animal distinct from the weight -and size of any other animal; and the life of the animal no more exists -after the animal has ceased than does the weight or the size of the -animal exist, after its body is destroyed. The word "life" used of an -oyster, a lobster, a sheep, a horse, or of a human being, expresses in -each case a state distinguishable in significance. Life is the special -activity of each organised being; the sum of the phenomena proper to -organised bodies. George Henry Lewes says: "Life is the functional -activity of an organism in relation to its medium. Every part of a -living organism is vital as pertaining to life: but no part has this -life when isolated; for life is the synthesis of all the parts." -Theologians sometimes seek to make contrasts between living animals and -what they are pleased to term dead matter. Life is not a contrast to -non-living substance, but a different condition of it. - -By the word "matter," or "substance," or "nature," is intended the sum -of all phenomena, actual, past, possible, and of all that is necessary -for the happening of any and every phenomenon. - -The word "force" includes every phase of activity. Force does not -express an entity, but is the word by which we account for, or rather -the word by the use of which we avoid explaining, the activity of -matter, or, as G.H. Lewes would write it, the activity of the felt. He -says: "All we know is feeling and changes of feeling. We class the felt -apart from the changes, the one as matter, the other as force. The -qualities of matter are our feelings; the properties of matter are its -qualities, viewed in reference to the effects of one body on another, -rather than their effects on us. Both qualities and properties are -forces, when considered as affecting changes." By the "mind" of any -animal is meant the sum of the remembered perceptions of that animal, -and its, his, or her, thinkings on such perceptions. Says Max Mueller: -"All consciousness begins with sensuous perception, with what we feel, -and hear, and see." "Out of this we construct what may be called -conceptual knowledge." "Thinking consists simply in addition and -subtraction of precepts and concepts." - -Those who maintain the doctrine of what is called the immortality of the -soul, contend for the existence of a living, thinking spirit, which, -they say, is not the body, and which, they urge, will continue when the -body has ceased. The burden of proving this "soul" rests on those who -maintain and assert it. It is clear that there is no identity between -life and "soul;" life commences, varies, and ceases, in accordance with -the growth, decay, and dissolution of the body. The orthodox contention -for soul must be that its existence is independent of the body, and this -shows that soul is not life. Nor is there any identity between mind and -soul. All perception is dependent on the (bodily) perceptive ability and -its exercise. All thought has some action of the bodily organism for its -immediate antecedent and accompaniment. As the soul is not life, is not -mind, and cannot be body, what is it? To call it spirit, and to leave -the word spirit undefined is to do nothing. Religionists talk to me of -my "soul;" that is, an individual soul continuing to exist, they say, -with a continuing consciousness of personal identity after "I" am dead. -But if a baby two months old dies, what consciousness of personal -identity continues in such a case? Or, if an idiot from birth dies at -the age of eighteen: or if a person, sane until twenty, becomes insane, -lives insane until forty, and then dies: in either of these two cases -what is it that is supposed to be the personal identity which continues -after death? And what is meant by my "soul" living after "I" am dead? -The word "I" to me represents the bodily organism, its vital and mental -activities. To tell me that my body dies and that yet my life continues -is a contradiction in terms. To declare that my life has ended, but that -I continue to think is to affirm a like contradiction. Religionists seem -to think that they avoid the difficulty, or turn it upon us, by -propounding riddles. They analyse the body, and, giving a list of what -they call elementary substances, they say: Can oxygen think? can carbon -think? can nitrogen think? and when they have triumphantly gone through -the list, they add, that as none of these by itself can think, thought -is not a result of matter, but is a quality of soul. This reasoning at -best only amounts to declaring, "We know what body is, but we know -nothing of soul; as we cannot understand how body, which we do know, can -think, we therefore declare that it is soul, which we do not know, that -does think." There is a still greater fault in this theological -reasoning in favor of the soul, for it assumes, contrary to experience, -that no quality or result can be found in a given combination which is -not also discoverable in each or any of the modes, parts, atoms, or -elements combined. Yet this is monstrously absurd. Sugar tastes sweet, -but neither carbon, nor oxygen, nor hydrogen, separately tasted, -exhibits sweetness; yet sugar is the word by which you describe a -certain combination of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. I contend that the -word "soul," in relation to human, vital, and mental phenomena, occupies -an analagous position to that which used to be occupied by such words as -"demon," "genii," "gnome," "fairy," "gods," in relation to general -physical phenomena. - -The ability to think is never found except as an ability of animal -organisation, and the ability is always found higher or lower as the -organisation is higher or lower: the exercise of this ability varies in -childhood, youth, prime, and old age, and is promoted or hindered by -climate, food, and mode of life; yet the orthodox maintainers of soul -require us to believe that the ability to think might be found without -animal organisation, and might, nay will, exist independent of all vital -conditions. They contend that what they call the soul will live when the -human being has ceased to live; but they do not explain whether it did -live before the human being began to live. The orthodox contend that as -what they call the elementary substances, taken separately, do not -think, therefore man without a soul cannot think, and that as man does -think he must have a soul. This argument, if valid at all, goes much too -far; a trout thinks, a carp thinks, a rat thinks, a dog thinks, a horse -thinks, and, by parity of reasoning, all these animals should have -immortal souls. - -It is sometimes urged that to deny the immortality of the soul is to -reduce man to the level of the beast, but it is forgotten that mankind -are not quite on a level. Take the savage, with lower jaw projecting far -in advance, and compare him with Dante, Shakspere, - -Milton, or Voltaire. Take the Papuan and Plato; the Esquimaux and -Confucius; and then ask whether it is possible to contend that all human -beings have equal souls? - -The orthodox man declares that my soul is spirit, that my body is -matter; that my soul has nothing in common with my body; that it exists -entirely independently of my body; that my soul lives after my body has -ceased to live; that, after my body has decayed, is disintegrated, and -become absorbed in and commingled with the elements, my soul still -continues uncorrupted and unaffected. But not a shadow of proof or even -of reasonable explanation is offered in support of any clause in this -declaration. The word "spirit" is left utterly undefined. No sort of -explanation is given of the nexus between the two alleged distinct -existences, "body" and "soul." Not a trace is suggested of "soul," -otherwise than through what are admittedly material conditions. - -Those who allege that there is a distinct "soul" which is to live for -ever should also explain whether or not this soul has always -existed--i.e. whether my soul existed prior to the commencement and -clearly traceable growth of my body? And where? And for how long? If it -did exist prior to my commencement in the womb, how was it then -identifiable as my soul? If prior to my body it was not so identifiable, -how will it be identifiable after my body has ceased? If the soul -existed prior to my body, had it always existed? If yes, do you mean -that each soul is eternal? That no soul has ever begun to be? - -If you argue for the eternity of the soul, you deny God as universal -creator; if you contend that soul commenced or was commenced, you should -also admit that it may finish or be finished. If the soul existed prior -to my body, had it been waiting inactive, but ready to occupy my body? -And if yes, when did the occupation commence? And was the soul always -existing perfect and unimprovable? If after vitalisation the unborn -child dies, what becomes of the soul? and what is it in such a case that -evidences that the particular soul had ever existed? If after birth the -baby dies before it thinks, though after it has breathed, where in this -case is the trace of the soul? If it should be conceded that my soul -only began with my body, why is it to be maintained that it will not -cease with my body? If, as is pretended, my "soul" is not identifiable -with my body, how is it that all intellectual manifestations are -affected by my bodily condition, growth, health, decay? If the soul is -immortal and immaterial, how is it that temporary pressure on the brain -may paralyse and prevent all mental manifestation, and that fracture by -a poker or by a bullet may annihilate the possibility of any further -mental activity? Henri Taine and Charles Darwin have very carefully -noted for us the evidence of gradual growth of sensitive ability and of -mind in children. Those who tell us of soul--which is, they say, not -body, nor quality of body, nor result of body, nor influenced by -body--should at least explain to us how it is that all manifestations -which they say are peculiar to soul keep pace with, and are limited by, -the development of body. - -What the orthodox claim under the word soul is really the totality of -mental ability--founded in perception--and its exercise; dependent, -first, on the perceptive ability of the perceiver, and, secondly, on the -range of the activity of such ability. Even two individuals of similar -perceptive ability may have a varied store of perceptions, and later -perceptions in each case, even of identical phenomena, may in -consequence have different values. The memory of perception, comparison -of and distinguishment between perceptions, thoughts upon and concepts -as to perceptions, memory, comparison and distinguishment of all or any -of these, the various mental processes included in doubting, believing, -reasoning, willing, etc., all these--which I contend are the -consequences of vital organisation, commence with it, are strengthened -and weakened, and, which I maintain, cease with it--are included by the -orthodox under the word "soul." None of the orthodox, and few of the -spiritualists, contend that the "memory" of the rat, the cow, or the -horse is to survive the decease of rat, cow, and horse. Scarcely anyone -is hardy enough to maintain that the ghost of the thinking sheep -persists with active thought after the slaughterhouse and dinner of -roast mutton. Yet if one range of animal mental ability is to be -classified as immortal, why not all? Why claim immortality for the -"soul" of the idiot, and deny it to the thought, memory, reason, faith, -doubt, and will of the retriever? None claim immortality for the -brightness of the steel when oxidation has so disfigured the surface -that rust has superseded all brilliance; none claim immortality for the -sweet odor of the rose when the vegetable mass emits only unpleasant -smells and exhibits unsightly rottenness; none claim immortality for the -color of the beautiful lily decayed and withered away. Those who claim -immortality for what they call the "soul" should first clearly define -it, and then at least try to prove that the attributes they claim for -soul are not the attributes of what we know as living body. - -The word "mind" describes all the possible states of consciousness of -each animal; but as after its death there is no longer in that case any -continuing animal, so neither is there any possibly continuing mind. But -it is only in connexion with the mental and vital processes that there -is any shadow of attempt by theologians to in any fashion identify soul, -and therefore when life has ceased and consciousness is consequently no -longer, there is not even the faintest trace of aught remaining to which -the word "soul" can with any reasonableness be applied from the -theological standpoint. Dr. John Drysdale says: "The mind, looked at in -its complete state, in its unity, personality, obedience to laws of its -own, apparent spontaneity of action and controlling power over the body, -and in the total dissimilarity of all its phenomena from all known -bodily and material effects, has been almost universally ascribed to the -working of an immaterial substance added to organised matter. But such a -substance is quite as hypothetical as the potentiality of mind lying in -matter, and hence it explains nothing; whereas, if we grant the -possibility of consciousness as a concomitant of certain material -changes, the peculiarities of mind as an action or function require no -further explanation than the conditions of those changes;" and, he adds, -"it may be held proved in physiology that for every feeling, every -thought, and every volition, a correlative change takes place in the -nerve-matter, and, given this special change in every respect identical, -a similar state of circumstances will always arise; that this process -occupies time, that it requires a due supply of oxygenated blood, that -it is interrupted or destroyed by whatever impairs the integrity of the -nerve-matter, and, lastly, it is exhausted by its own activity and -requires rest." - -"If," says the same writer, "the mind is merely a function of the -material organism, it must necessarily perish with it. If mind and life -are a compound of matter and some diffused ethereal spiritual substance, -then at death a personal continuance is equally impossible. If mind is a -spirit at all, it must be a definite, indivisible piece of spiritual -substance; and if naturally indestructible and immortal as the personal -human individual, it must be equally so in all individuals which display -mind. Now, it is too late in the day to require a single sentence in -proof of the existence of mind in animals; therefore, if the possession -of mind naturally involves the immortality of the soul, the latter must -be shared equally with the animals who certainly also possess the -conscious Ego;" and Dr. J. Drysdale maintains that mind is essentially -of the same nature in animals and in man, although of higher and wider -scope in the latter, and that in all cases mind is a function of -organised matter and necessarily perishes when that organisation ceases. - -In all animals the living brain is essential to all phases of thought. -The thought-ability of any animal is always in precise proportion to the -perfection and activity of the brain. The power of developing thought -grows, diminishes, and ceases, the cessation always being complete when -the brain ceases to perform its vital functions. If the brain is injured -the thought-ability is impaired, the thinking deranged. Yet who to-day -would think it wise or necessary, with evidence of aberration of thought -resulting from local injury, to treat it as a case of demoniacal -possession? - -One other difficulty in the discussion of this question is that new -discoveries are not taken into account by our spiritual antagonists in -estimating the value of old formulas. Two thousand three hundred years -ago demonology had not yet passed into the region of fable. Socrates -spoke of the soul as if it had been specially infused into the body by -the Gods, and declared "that the soul which resides in thy body can -govern it at pleasure;" but such discoveries have since been made in -physiology and psychology that were Socrates alive to-day Aristodemus -might now well make answers to the old Greek sage which were then -impossible. Plato, too, contended for the immortality of the human soul, -but under cover of this line of reasoning he also offered proof that the -world was an animal and had a like soul. Plato's orthodox admirers today -carefully avoid Plato's presentation of the earth as an animal with an -immortal soul. David Masson attributes to Auguste Comte the first open -and clear adoption of a position on the soul question which rendered -evasion difficult. "Previous physiological psychologists, including -phrenologists, had generally shrunk from the extreme to which their -opponents had said they were committed. They had kept up the -time-honored distinction between mind and body; they had used language -implying a recognition of some unknown anima, or vital principle, -concealed behind the animal organism; some of them had even been anxious -to vindicate their belief in the immateriality or transcendental nature -of this principle. But Comte ended all that shilly-shallying. Mind, he -said, is the name for the functions of brain and nerve; mind is brain -and nerve. This destroyed, that ceases." - -In his "Enigmas of Life" William Rathbone Greg concedes that "visible -and ascertainable phenomena give no countenance to the theory of a -future or spiritual life." He urges that a sense of identity, a -conscious continuity of the Ego, is an essential element of the -doctrine, and Mr. Greg speaks of this as accounting for "the astonishing -doctrine of the resurrection of the body which has so strangely and -thoughtlessly found its way into the popular creed. The primitive -parents or congealers of that creed--whoever they may have -been--innocent of all science, and oddly muddled in their metaphysics, -but resolute in their conviction that the same persons who died here -should be, in very deed, the same who should rise -hereafter--systematised their anticipations into the notion that the -grave should give up its actual inmates for their ordained -transformation and their allotted fate. The current notion of the -approaching end of the world, no doubt helped to blind them to the -vulnerability, and indeed the fatal self-contradictions, of the form in -which they had embodied their faith. Of course, if they had taken time -to think, or if the Fathers of the Church had been more given to -thinking in the rigid meaning of the word, they would have discovered -that this special form rendered that faith absurd, indefensible, and -virtually impossible. They did not know, or they never considered, that -the buried body soon dissolves into its elements, which, in the course -of generations and centuries, pass into other combinations, form part of -other living creatures, feed and constitute countless organisations one -after another; so that when the graves are summoned 'to give up the dead -that are in them,' and the sea 'the dead that are in it,' they will be -called on to surrender what they no longer possess, and what no -supernatural power can give back to them. It never occurred to those -creed makers, who thus took upon themselves to carnalise an idea into a -fact, that for every atom that once went to make up the body they -committed to the earth, there would be scores of claimants before the -Great Day of Account; and that even Omnipotence could scarcely be -expected to make the same component part be in two or ten places at -once. The original human frames, therefore, _could not be had when_, as -supposed, they would be wanted." And in his "Creed of Christendom" he -writes: "Appearances all testify to the reality and permanence of death; -a fearful onus of proof lies upon those who contend that these -appearances are deceptive. When we interrogate the vast universe of -organisation, we see not simply life and death, but gradually growing -life and gradually approaching death. After death, all that we have ever -_known_ of man is gone; all we have ever seen of him is dissolved into -its component elements; it does not _disappear_ so as to leave us at -liberty to imagine that it may have gone to exist elsewhere, but is -actually used up as materials for other purposes." There is one alleged -"indication of immortality" which Mr. Greg twice repeats, and to which -we will offer a word of reply. His statement is as follows: - -"I refer to that _spontaneous_, irresistible, and, perhaps, nearly -universal, feeling we all experience on watching, just after death, the -body of someone we have intimately known; the conviction, I mean a -sense, a consciousness, an impression _which you have to fight against -if you wish to disbelieve or shake it off_ that the form lying there is -not the Ego you have loved. It does not produce the effect of that -person's personality. You miss the Ego though you have the frame. The -visible Presence only makes more vivid the sense of actual Absence. -Every feature, every substance, every phenomenon is there, and is -unchanged. You have seen the eyes as firmly closed, the limbs as -motionless, the breath almost as imperceptible, the face as fixed and -expressionless before, in sleep or in trance, without the same peculiar -sensation. The impression made is indefinable, and is not the result of -any conscious process of thought--that that body, quite unchanged to the -eye, is not, and never was your friend--the Ego you were conversant -with; and that his or her individuality was not the garment before you -_plus_ a galvanic current; that, in fact, the Ego you knew once and seek -still, _was not that--is not there_. And if not there, it must be -_elsewhere or nowhere_, and 'nowhere,' I believe, modern science will -not suffer us to predicate of either force or substance that once has -been." - -Undoubtedly the dead body is not the living human being you loved. It -has ceased to live. Every phenomenon is not there unchanged, the whole -of the vital phenomena are wanting; there is a complete change so far as -organic functional activity is concerned. Even the body itself is not -quite unchanged to the eye. There is in most cases, and especially to -skilled vision, an easily detectible difference between a living man and -a corpse. To say that the Ego is not there, and if not there must be -elsewhere, is to use an absurd phrase. Take an ordinary drinking-glass -and crush it into powder, or shatter it into fragments, the -drinking-glass is not there, nor is it elsewhere; the combination which -made up drinking-glass no longer exists. Ego does not denote body only, -it denotes living body with personal characteristics. Take a bright -steel blade, let the surface be oxidised, and the brightness is no -longer there, nor is it elsewhere; it is only that the conditions which -were resultant in brightness no longer exist. - -It used to be the fashion to argue at one time as if the majority of, if -not the whole of, the human race accepted, without doubt, the dogma of -the immortality of the soul; but such a contention is to-day utterly -impossible. Strauss, Buechner, Haeckel, Clifford, and a host of others, -take ground as representatives of thousands of heterodox Europeans, and -even in the pulpit itself orthodoxy is suspect. The Reverend Edward -White declares the "natural eternity of souls as a positive dogma to be -destitute of all evidence from nature or revelation;" and he refers to -"scientific biologists of the first rank, who, after careful study of -the phenomena of brain-production and mind-evolution throughout living -nature, and of the phenomena of waste and destruction in unfinished -organisms, declare it to be the height of absurdity to maintain" this -immortality doctrine; and Mr. White reminds us that 480 millions of -Buddhists on the continent of Asia all believe in the "extinction of -individual being." It is only fair, however, to add here that scholars -still dispute as to whether or not "nirvana" should be read as meaning -annihilation. - -A quotation from Dr. Henry Maudsley may fitly terminate this brief -essay: "To those who cannot conceive that any organisation of matter, -however complete, should be capable of such exalted functions as those -which are called mental, is it really more conceivable that any -organisation of matter can be the mechanical instrument of the complex -manifestations of an immaterial mind? It is strangely overlooked by many -who write on this matter that the brain is not a dead instrument, but a -living organ, with functions of a higher kind than those of any other -bodily organ, insomuch as its organic nature and structure far surpass -those of any other organs. What, then, are those functions if they are -not mental? No one thinks it necessary to assume an immaterial liver -behind the hepatic structure, in order to account for its functions. But -so far as the nature of nerve and the complex structure of the cerebral -convolutions exceed in dignity the hepatic elements and structure, so -far must the material functions of the brain exceed those of the liver. -Men are not sufficiently careful to ponder the wonderful operations of -which matter is capable, or to reflect on the changes effected by it -which are continually before their eyes. Are the properties of a -chemical compound less mysterious essentially because of the familiarity -with which we handle them? Consider the seed dropped into the ground; it -swells with germinating energy, bursts its integuments, sends upwards a -delicate shoot, which grows into a stem, putting forth in due season its -leaves and flowers. And yet all these processes are operations of -matter, for it is not thought necessary to assume an immaterial or -spiritual plant which effects its purposes through the agency of the -material structure which we observe. Surely there are here exhibited -properties of matter wonderful enough to satisfy anyone of the powers -that may be inherent in it. Are we, then, to believe that the highest -and most complex development of organic structure is not capable of even -more wonderful operations? Would you have the human body, which is a -microcosm containing all the forms and powers of matter, organised in -the most delicate and complex manner, to possess lower powers than those -forms of matter exhibit separately in nature? Trace the gradual -development of the nervous system through the animal series, from its -first germ to its most complex evolution, and let it be declared at what -point it suddenly loses all its inherent properties as living structure, -and becomes the mere mechanical instrument of a spiritual entity. In -what animal, or in what class of animals, does the immaterial principle -abruptly intervene, and supersede the agency of matter, becoming the -entirely distinct cause of a similar, though more exalted, order of -phenomena? The burden of proving that the _deus ex machina_ of a -spiritual entity intervenes somewhere, and where it intervenes, clearly -lies upon those who make the assertion, or who need the hypothesis. They -are not justified in arbitrarily fabricating a hypothesis entirely -inconsistent with experience of the orderly development of nature, which -even postulates a domain of nature that human senses cannot take any -cognisance of, and in then calling upon those who reject their -assumption to disprove it." - - - - -IS THERE A GOD - - -THE initial difficulty is in defining the word "God." It is equally -impossible to intelligently affirm or deny any proposition unless there -is at least an understanding, on the part of the affirmer or denier, of -the meaning of every word used in the proposition. To me the word "God" -standing alone is a word without meaning. I find the word repeatedly -used even by men of education and refinement, and who have won -reputation in special directions of research, rather to illustrate their -ignorance than to explain their knowledge. Various sects of Theists do -affix arbitrary meanings to the word "God," but often these meanings are -in their terms selfcontradictory, and usually the definition maintained -by one sect of Theists more or less contradicts the definition put -forward by some other sect. With the Unitarian Jew, the Trinitarian -Christian, the old Polytheistic Greek, the modern Universalist, or the -Calvinist, the word "God" will in each case be intended to express a -proposition absolutely irreconcilable with those of the other sects. In -this brief essay, which can by no means be taken as a complete answer to -the question which forms its title, I will for the sake of argument take -the explanation of the word "God" as given with great carefulness by Dr. -Robert Flint, Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh, in -two works directed by him against Atheism. He defines God ("Antitheistic -Theories," p. 1,) as "a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient, -righteous and benevolent being who is distinct from and independent of -what he has created;" ("Theism," p. 1,) as "a self-existent, eternal -being, infinite in power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and -goodness, the maker of heaven and earth;" and (p. 18,) "the creator and -preserver of nature, the governor of nations, the heavenly father and -judge of man;" (p. 18,) "one infinite personal;" (p. 42,) "the one -infinite" being" who "is a person--is a free and loving intelligence;" -(p. 59,) "the creator, preserver, and ruler of all finite beings;" (p. -65,) "not only the ultimate cause, but the supreme intelligence;" and -(p. 74,) "the supreme moral intelligence is an unchangeable being." That -is, in the above statements "God" is defined by Professor Flint to be: -_A supreme, self-existent, the one infinite, eternal, omnipotent, -omniscient, unchangeable, righteous, and benevolent, personal being, -creator and preserver of nature, maker of heaven and earth; who is -distinct from and independent of what he has created, who is a free, -loving, supreme, moral intelligence, the governor of nations, the -heavenly father and judge of man._ - -The two volumes, published by William Blackwood and Son, from which this -definition has been collected, form the Baird Lectures in favor of -Theism for the years 1876 and 1877. Professor Flint has a well-deserved -reputation as a clear thinker and writer of excellent ability as a -Theistic advocate. I trust, therefore, I am not acting unfairly in -criticising his definition. My first objection is, that to me the -definition is on the face of it so self-contradictory that a negative -answer must be given to the question, Is there such a God? The -association of the word "supreme" with the word "infinite" as -descriptive of a "personal being" is utterly confusing. "Supreme" can -only be used as expressing comparison between the being to whom it is -applied, and some other being with whom that "supreme" being is assumed -to have possible points of comparison and is then compared. But "the one -infinite being" cannot be compared with any other infinite being, for -the wording of the definition excludes the possibility of any other -infinite being, nor could the infinite being--for the word "one" may be -dispensed with, as two infinite beings are unthinkable--be compared with -any finite being. "Supreme" is an adjective of relation and is totally -inapplicable to "the infinite." It can only be applied to one of two or -more finites. "Supreme" with "omnipotent" is pleonastic. If it is said -that the word "supreme" is now properly used to distinguish between the -Creator and the created, the governor and that which is governed, then -it is clear that the word "supreme" would have been an inapplicable word -of description to "the one infinite being" prior to creation, and this -would involve the declaration that the exact description of the -unchangeable has been properly changed, which is an absurdity. The -definition affirms "creation," that is, affirms "God" existing prior to -such creation--i.e., then the sole existence; but the word "supreme" -could not then apply. An existence cannot be described as "highest" when -there is none other; therefore, none less high. The word "supreme" as a -word of description is absolutely contradictory of Monism. Yet Professor -Flint himself says ("Anti-Theistic Theories," p. 132), "that reason, -when in quest of an ultimate explanation of things, imperatively demands -unity, and that only a Monistic theory of the universe can deserve the -name of a philosophy." Professor Flint has given no explanation of the -meaning he attaches to the word "self-existent." Nor, indeed, has he -given any explanation of any of his words of description. By -self-existent I mean that to which you cannot conceive antecedent. By -"infinite" I mean immeasurable, illimitable, indefinable; i.e., that of -which I cannot predicate extension, or limitation of extension. By -"eternal" I mean illimitable, indefinable, i.e., that of which I cannot -predicate limitation of duration or progression of duration. - -"Nature" is with me the same as "universe," the same as "existence;" -i.e., I mean by it: The totality of all phenomena, and of all that has -been, is, or may be necessary for the happening of each and every -phenomenon. It is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent, -eternal, infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discontinuity, -or creation. I am unable to think backward to the possibility of -existence not having been. I cannot think forward to the possibility of -existence ceasing to be. I have no meaning for the word "create" except -to denote change of condition. Origin of "universe" is to me absolutely -unthinkable. Sir William Hamilton ("Lectures and Discussions," p. 610) -affirms: that when aware of a new appearance we are utterly unable to -conceive that there has originated any new existence; that we are -utterly unable to think that the complement of existence has ever been -either increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive nothing -becoming something, or something becoming nothing. Professor Flint's -definition affirms "God" as existing "distinct from, and independent of, -what he has created." But what can such words mean when used of the -"infinite?" Does "distinct from" mean separate from? Does the "universe" -existing distinct from God mean in addition to? and in other place than? -or, have the words no meaning? - -Of all words in Professor Flint's definition, which would be appropriate -if used of human beings, I mean the same as I should mean if I used the -same words in the highest possible degree of any human being. Here I -maintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his examination of -Sir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteousness and benevolence are two of the -words of description included in the definition of this creator and -governor of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create men -and govern nations so that the men act criminally and the nations seek -to destroy one another in war? Professor Flint does not deny ("Theism," -p. 256) "that God could have originated a sinless moral system," and he -adds: "I have no doubt that God has actually made many moral beings who -are certain never to oppose their own wills to his, or that he might, if -he had so pleased, have created only such angels as were sure to keep -their first estate." But it is inaccurate to describe a "God" as -righteous or benevolent who, having the complete power to originate a -sinless moral system, is admitted to have originated a system in which -sinfulness and immorality were not only left possible, but have -actually, in consequence of God's rule and government, become abundant. -It cannot be righteous for the "omnipotent" to be making human beings -contrived and designed by his omniscience so as to be fitted for the -commission of sin. It cannot be benevolent in "God" to contrive and -create a hell in which he is to torment the human beings who have sinned -because made by him in sin. "God," if omnipotent and omniscient, could -just as easily, and much more benevolently, have contrived that there -should never be any sinners, and, therefore, never any need for hell or -torment. - -The Rev. R.A. Armstrong, with whom I debated this question, says:-- - -"'Either,' argues Mr. Bradlaugh, in effect, 'God could make a world -without suffering, or he could not. If he could and did not, he is not -all-good. If he could not, he is not all-powerful.' The reply is, What -do you mean by all-powerful? If you mean having power to reconcile -things in themselves contradictory, we do not hold that God is -all-powerful. But a humanity, from the first enjoying immunity from -suffering, and yet possessed of nobility of character, is a -self-contradictory conception." - -That is, Mr. Armstrong thinks that a "sinless moral system from the -first is a self-contradictory conception." - -It is difficult to think a loving governor of nations arranging one set -of cannibals to eat, and another set of human beings to be eaten by -their fellow-men. It is impossible to think a loving creator and -governor contriving a human being to be born into the world the -pre-natal victim of transmitted disease. It is repugnant to reason to -affirm this "free loving supreme moral intelligence" planning and -contriving the enduring through centuries of criminal classes, -plague-spots on civilisation. - -The word "unchangeable" contradicts the word "creator." Any theory of -creation must imply some period when the being was not yet the creator, -that is, when yet the creation was not performed, and the act of -creation must in such case, at any rate, involve temporary or permanent -change in the mode of existence of the being creating. So, too, the -words of description "governor of nations" are irreconcileable with the -description "unchangeable," applied to a being alleged to have existed -prior to the creation of the "nations," and therefore, of course, long -before any act of government could be exercised. - -To speak of an infinite personal being seems to me pure contradiction of -terms. All attempts to think "person" involve thoughts of the limited, -finite, conditioned. To describe this infinite personal being as -distinct from some thing which is postulated as "what he has created" is -only to emphasise the contradiction, rendered perhaps still more marked -when the infinite personal being is described as "intelligent." - -The Rev. R.A. Armstrong, in a prefatory note to the report of his debate -with myself on the question "Is it reasonable to worship God?" says: "I -have ventured upon alleging an intelligent cause of the phenomena of the -universe, in spite of the fact that in several of his writings Mr. -Bradlaugh has described intelligence as implying limitations. But though -intelligence, as known to us in man, is always hedged within limits, -there is no difficulty in conceiving each and every limit as removed. In -that case the essential conception of intelligence remains the same -precisely, although the change of conditions revolutionises its mode of -working." This, it seems to me, is not accurate. The word intelligence -can only be accurately used of man, as in each case meaning the totality -of mental ability, its activity and result. If you eliminate in each -case all possibilities of mental ability there is no "conception of -intelligence" left, either essential or otherwise. If you attempt to -remove the limits, that is the organisation, the intelligence ceases to -be thinkable. It is unjustifiable to talk of "change of conditions" when -you remove the word intelligence as a word of application to man or -other thinking animal, and seek to apply the word to the unconditional. - -As an Atheist I affirm one existence, and deny the possibility of more -than one existence; by existence meaning, as I have already stated, "the -totality of all phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be -necessary for the happening of any and every phenomenon." This existence -I know in its modes, each mode being distinguished in thought by its -qualities. By "mode" I mean each cognised condition; that is, each -phenomenon or aggregation of phenomena. By "quality" I mean each -characteristic by which in the act of thinking I distinguish. - -The distinction between the Agnostic and the Atheist is that either the -Agnostic postulates an unknowable, or makes a blank avowal of general -ignorance. The Atheist does not do either; there is of course to him -much that is yet unknown, every effort of inquiry brings some of this -within reach of knowing. With "the unknowable" conceded, all scientific -teaching would be illusive. Every real scientist teaches without -reference to "God" or "the unknowable." If the words come in as part of -the yesterday habit still clinging to-day, the scientist conducts his -experiments as though the words were not. Every operation of life, of -commerce, of war, of statesmanship, is dealt with as though God were -nonexistent. The general who asks God to give him victory, and who -thanks God for the conquest, would be regarded as a lunatic by his -Theistic brethren, if he placed the smallest reliance on God's -omnipotence as a factor in winning the fight. Cannon, gunpowder, shot, -shell, dynamite, provision, men, horses, means of transport, the value -of these all estimated, then the help of "God" is added to what is -enough without God to secure the triumph. The surgeon who in performing -some delicate operation relied on God instead of his instruments--the -physician who counted on the unknowable in his prescription--these would -have poor clientele even amongst the orthodox; save the peculiar people -the most pious would avoid their surgical or medical aid. The "God" of -the Theist, the "unknowable" of the Agnostic, are equally opposed to the -Atheistic affirmation. The Atheist enquires as to the unknown, affirms -the true, denies the untrue. The Agnostic knows not of any proposition -whether it be true or false. - -Pantheists affirm one existence, but Pantheists declare that at any rate -some qualities are infinite, e.g. that existence is infinitely -intelligent. I, as an Atheist, can only think qualities of phenomena. I -know each phenomenon by its qualities. I know no qualities except as the -qualities of some phenomenon. - -So long as the word "God" is undefined I do not deny "God." To the -question, Is there such a God as defined by Professor Flint, I am -compelled to give a negative reply. If the word "God" is intended to -affirm Dualism, then as a Monist I negate "God." - -The attempts to prove the existence of God may be divided into three -classes:--1. Those which attempt to prove the objective existence of God -from the subjective notion of necessary existence in the human mind, or -from the assumed objectivity of space and time, interpreted as the -attributes of a necessary substance. 2. Those which "essay to prove the -existence of a supreme self-existent cause, from the mere fact of the -existence of the world by the application of the principle of causality, -starting with the postulate of any single existence whatsoever, the -world, or anything in the world, and proceeding to argue backwards or -upwards, the existence of one supreme cause is held to be regressive -inference from the existence of these effects." But it is enough to -answer to these attempts, that if a supreme existence were so -demonstrable, that bare entity would not be identifiable with "God." "A -demonstration of a primitive source of existence is of no formal -theological value. It is an absolute zero." - -3. The argument from design, or adaptation, in nature, the fitness of -means to an end, implying, it is said, an architect or designer. Or, -from the order in the universe, indicating, it is said, an orderer or -lawgiver, whose intelligence we thus discern. - -But this argument is a failure, because from finite instances differing -in character it assumes an infinite cause absolutely the same for all. -Divine unity, divine personality, are here utterly unproved. "Why should -we rest in our inductive inference of one designer from the alleged -phenomena of design, when these are claimed to be so varied and so -complex?" - -If the inference from design is to avail at all, it must avail to show -that all the phenomena leading to misery and mischief, must have been -designed and intended by a being finding pleasure in the production and -maintenance of this misery and mischief. If the alleged constructor of -the universe is supposed to have designed one beneficent result, must he -not equally be supposed to have designed all results? And if the -inference of benevolence and goodness be valid for some instances, must -not the inference of malevolence and wickedness be equally valid from -others? If, too, any inference is to be drawn from the illustration of -organs in animals supposed to be specially contrived for certain -results, what is the inference to be drawn from the many abortive and -incomplete organs, muscles, nerves, etc., now known to be traceable in -man and other animals? What inference is to be drawn from each instance -of deformity or malformation? But the argument from design, if it proved -anything, would at the most only prove an arranger of pre-existing -material; it in no sense leads to the conception of an originator of -substance. - -There is no sort of analogy between a finite artificer arranging a -finite mechanism and an alleged divine creator originating all -existence. From an alleged product you are only at liberty to infer a -producer after having seen a similar product actually produced. - - - - -A PLEA FOR ATHEISM - - -THIS essay is issued in the hope that it may succeed in removing some of -the many prejudices prevalent, not only against the actual holders of -Atheistic opinions, but also against those wrongfully suspected of -Atheism. Men who have been famous for depth of thought, for excellent -wit, or great genius, have been recklessly assailed as Atheists by those -who lack the high qualifications against which the malice of the -calumniators was directed. Thus, not only have Voltaire and Paine been, -without ground, accused of Atheism, but Bacon, Locke, and Bishop -Berkeley himself, have, amongst others, been denounced by thoughtless or -unscrupulous pietists as inclining to Atheism, the ground for the -accusation being that they manifested an inclination to push human -thought a little in advance of the age in which they lived. - -It is too often the fashion with persons of pious reputation to speak in -unmeasured language of Atheism as favoring immorality, and of Atheists -as men whose conduct is necessarily vicious, and who have adopted -Atheistic views as a desperate defiance against a Deity justly offended -by the badness of their lives. Such persons urge that amongst the -proximate causes of Atheism are vicious training, immoral and profligate -companions, licentious living and the like. Dr. John Pye Smith, in his -"Instructions on Christian Theology," goes so far as to declare that -"nearly all the Atheists upon record have been men of extremely -debauched and vile conduct." Such language from the Christian advocate -is not surprising, but there are others who, while professing great -desire for the spread of Freethought and having pretensions to rank -amongst acute and liberal thinkers, declare Atheism impracticable, and -its teachings cold, barren, and negative. Excepting to each of the above -allegations, I maintain that thoughtful Atheism affords greater -possibility for human happiness than any system yet based on, or -possible to be founded on, Theism, and that the lives of true Atheists -must be more virtuous--because more human--than those of the believers -in Deity, the humanity of the devout believer often finding itself -neutralised by a faith with which that humanity is necessarily in -constant collision. The devotee piling the faggots at the _auto da fe_ -of a heretic, and that heretic his son, might notwithstanding be a good -father in every other respect (see Deuteronomy xiii, 6-10). Heresy, in -the eyes of the believer, is highest criminality, and outweighs all -claims of family or affection. - -Atheism, properly understood, is no mere disbelief: is in no wise a -cold, barren negative; it is, on the contrary, a hearty, fruitful -affirmation of all truth, and involves the positive assertion of action -of highest humanity. - -Let Atheism be fairly examined, and neither condemned--its defence -unheard--on the _ex parte_ slanders of some of the professional -preachers of fashionable orthodoxy, whose courage is bold enough while -the pulpit protects the sermon, but whose valor becomes tempered with -discretion when a free platform is afforded and discussion claimed; nor -misjudged because it has been the custom to regard Atheism as so -unpopular as to render its advocacy impolitic. The best policy against -all prejudice is to firmly advocate the truth. The Atheist does not say -"There is no God" but he says: "I know not what you mean by God; I am -without idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear -or distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that -of which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its -affirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. If, -however, 'God' is defined to mean an existence other than the existence -of which I am a mode, then I deny 'God,' and affirm that it is -impossible such 'God' can be. That is, I affirm one existence, and deny -that there can be more than one." The Pantheist also affirms one -existence, and denies that there can be more than one; but the -distinction between the Pantheist and the Atheist is, that the Pantheist -affirms infinite attributes for existence, while the Atheist maintains -that attributes are the characteristics of mode--i.e., the diversities -enabling the conditioning in thought. - -When the Theist affirms that his God is an existence other than, and -separate from, the so-called material universe, and when he invests this -separate, hypothetical existence with the several attributes of -personality, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, eternity, infinity, -immutability, and perfect goodness, then the Atheist in reply says: "I -deny the existence of such a being;" and he is entitled to say this -because this Theistic definition is selfcontradictory, as well as -contradictory of every-day experience. - -If you speak to the Atheist of God as creator, he answers that the -conception of creation is impossible. We are utterly unable to construe -it in thought as possible that the complement of existence has been -either increased or diminished, much less can we conceive an absolute -origination of substance. We cannot conceive either, on the one hand, -nothing becoming something, or on the other, something becoming nothing. -The words "creation" and "destruction" have no value except as applied -to phenomena. You may destroy a gold coin, but you have only destroyed -the condition, you have not affected the substance. "Creation" and -"destruction" denote change of phenomena, they do not denote origin or -cessation of substance. The Theist who speaks of God creating the -universe, must either suppose that Deity evolved it out of himself, or -that he produced it from nothing. But the Theist cannot regard the -universe as evolution of Deity, because this would identify Universe and -Deity, and be Pantheism rather than Theism. There would be no -distinction of substance--no creation. Nor can the Theist regard the -universe as created out of nothing, because Deity is, according to him, -necessarily eternal and infinite. God's existence being eternal and -infinite, precludes the possibility of the conception of vacuum to be -filled by the universe if created. No one can even think of any point in -extent or duration and say: Here is the point of separation between the -creator and the created. It is not possible for the Theist to imagine a -beginning to the universe. It is not possible to conceive either an -absolute commencement, or an absolute termination of existence; that is, -it is impossible to conceive beginning, before which you have a period -when the universe has yet to be; or to conceive an end, after which the -universe, having been, no longer exists. The Atheist affirms that he -cognises to-day effects; that these are, at the same time, causes and -effects--causes to the effects they precede, effects to the causes they -follow. Cause is simply everything without which the effect would not -result, and with which it must result. Cause is the means to an end, -consummating itself in that end. Cause is the word we use to include all -that determines change. The Theist who argues for creation must assert a -point of time--that is, of duration, when the created did not yet exist. -At this point of time either something existed or nothing; but something -must have existed, for out of nothing nothing can come. Something must -have existed, because the point fixed upon is that of the duration of -something. This something must have been either finite or infinite; if -finite it could not have been God, and if the something were infinite, -then creation was impossible: it is impossible to add to infinite -existence. - -If you leave the question of creation and deal with the government of -the universe, the difficulties of Theism are by no means lessened. The -existence of evil is then a terrible stumbling block to the Theist. -Pain, misery, crime, poverty, confront the advocate of eternal goodness, -and challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity as -all-good, all-wise, and all-powerful. A recent writer in the _Spectator_ -admits that there is what it regards "as the most painful, as it is -often the most incurable, form of Atheism--the Atheism arising from a -sort of horror of the idea of an Omnipotent Being permitting such a -proportion of misery among the majority of his creatures." Evil is -either caused by God, or exists independently; but it cannot be caused -by God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exist -hostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he -would desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either -God's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had -a beginning or it must have been eternal; but, according to the Theist, -it cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had -a beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or -outside God; but, according to the Theist, it cannot have originated in -God for he is all-good, and out of all-goodness evil cannot originate; -nor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the Theist, -God is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond -infinity. - -To the Atheist this question of evil assumes an entirely different -aspect. He declares that each evil is a result, but not a result from -God nor Devil. He affirms that conduct founded on knowledge of the laws -of existence may ameliorate each present form of evil, and, as our -knowledge increases, prevent its future recurrence. - -Some declare that the belief in God is necessary as a check to crime. -They allege that the Atheist may commit murder, lie, or steal without -fear of any consequences. To try the actual value of this argument, it -is not unfair to ask: Do Theists ever steal? If yes, then in each such -theft the belief in God and his power to punish has been insufficient as -a preventive of the crime. Do Theists ever lie or murder? If yes, the -same remark has again force--Theism failing against the lesser as -against the greater crime. Those who use such an argument overlook that -all men seek happiness, though in very diverse fashions. Ignorant and -miseducated men often mistake the true path to happiness, and commit -crime in the endeavor to obtain it. Atheists hold that by teaching -mankind the real road to human happiness it is possible to keep them -from the bye-ways of criminality and error. Atheists would teach men to -be moral now, not because God offers as an inducement reward by-and-bye, -but because in the virtuous act itself immediate good is insured to the -doer and the circle surrounding him. Atheism would preserve man from -lying, stealing, murdering, not from fear of an eternal agony after -death, but because these crimes make this life itself a course of -misery. - -While Theism, asserting God as the creator and governor of the universe, -hinders and checks man's efforts by declaring God's will to be the sole -directing and controlling power, Atheism, by declaring all events to be -in accordance with natural laws--that is, happening in certain -ascertainable sequences--stimulates man to discover the best conditions -of life, and offers him the most powerful inducements to morality. While -the Theist provides future happiness for a scoundrel repentant on his -death-bed, Atheism affirms present and certain happiness for the man who -does his best to live here so well as to have little cause for repenting -hereafter. - -Theism declares that God dispenses health and inflicts disease, and -sickness and illness are regarded by the Theists as visitations from an -angered Deity, to be borne with meekness and content. Atheism declares -that physiological knowledge may preserve us from disease by preventing -us from infringing the law of health, and that sickness results not as -the ordinance of offended Deity, but from ill-ventilated dwellings and -workshops, bad and insufficient food, excessive toil, mental suffering, -exposure to inclement weather, and the like--all these finding root in -poverty, the chief source of crime and disease; that prayers and piety -afford no protection against fever, and that if the human being be kept -without food he will starve as quickly whether he be Theist or Atheist, -theology being no substitute for bread. - -It is very important, in order that injustice may not be done to the -Theistic argument, that we should have--in lieu of a clear definition, -which it seems useless to ask for--the best possible clue to the meaning -intended to be conveyed by the word "God." If it were not that the word -is an arbitrary term, maintained for the purpose of influencing the -ignorant, and the notions suggested by which are vague and entirely -contingent upon individual fancies, such a clue could probably be most -easily and satisfactorily obtained by tracing back the word "God," and -ascertaining the sense in which it was used by the uneducated -worshippers who have gone before us, and collating this with the more -modern Theism, qualified as it is by the superior knowledge of to-day. -Dupuis says: "Le mot _Dieu_ parait destine a exprimer l'idee de la force -universelle et eternellement active qui imprime le mouvement a tout dans -la Nature, suivant les lois d'une harmonie constante et admirable, qui -se developpe dans les diverses formes que prend la matiere organisee, -qui se mele a tout, anime tout, et qui semble etre une dans ses -modifications infiniment variees, et n'appartenir qu'a elle-meme." "The -word God appears intended to express the universal and eternally active -force which endows all nature with motion according to the laws of a -constant and admirable harmony; which develops itself in the diverse -forms of organised matter, which mingles with all, gives life to all; -which seems to be one through all its infinitely varied modifications, -and inheres in itself alone." - -In the "Bon Sens" of Cure Meslier, it is asked: "Qu'est-ce que Dieu?" -and the answer is: "C'est un mot abstrait fait pour designer la force -cachee de la nature; ou c'est un point mathematique qui n'a ni longueur, -ni largeur, ni pro-fondeur." "It is an abstract word coined to designate -the hidden force of nature; or is it a mathematical point having neither -length, breadth, nor depth." - -The orthodox fringe of the Theism of to-day is Hebraistic in its -origin--that is, it finds its root in the superstition and ignorance of -a petty and barbarous people nearly destitute of literature, poor in -language, and almost entirely wanting in high conceptions of humanity. -It might, as Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, be fairly -expected that the ancient Jewish records would aid us in our search -after the meaning to be attached to the word "God." The most prominent -words in Hebrew rendered God or Lord in English, _Ieue_, and _Aleim_. -The first word Ieue, called by our orthodox Jehovah, is equivalent to -"that which exists," and indeed embodies in itself the only possible -trinity in unity--i.e., past, present, and future. There is nothing in -this Hebrew word to help us to any such definition as is required for -the sustenance of modern Theism. The most we can make of it by any -stretch of imagination is equivalent to the declaration "I am, I have -been, I shall be." The word _Ieue_ is hardly ever spoken by the -religious Jews, who actually in reading substitute for it, Adonai, an -entirely different word. Dr. Wall notices the close resemblance in sound -between the word _Iehowa_ or _Ieue_, or Jehovah and Jove. In fact -Jupiter and Ieue-pater (God the father) present still closer resemblance -in sound. Jove is also [--Greek--] whence the word Deus and our Deity. -The Greek mythology, far more ancient than that of the Hebrews, has -probably found for Christianity many other and more important features -of coincidence than that of a similarly sounding name. The word -[--Greek--] traced back, affords us no help beyond that it identifies -Deity with the universe. Plato says that the early Greeks thought that -the only Gods [--Greek--] were the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven. -The word Aleim, assists us still less in defining the word God, for -Parkhurst translates it as a plural noun signifying "the curser," -deriving it from the verb _to curse_. Dr. Colenso has collected for us a -store of traditional meanings for the IAO of the Greek, and the _Ieue_ -of the Hebrew, but though these are interesting to the student of -mythology, they give no help to the Theistic demonstrator. Finding that -philology aids us but little, we must endeavor to arrive at the meaning -of the word "God" by another rule. It is utterly impossible to fix the -period of the rise of Theism amongst any particular people; but it is, -notwithstanding, comparatively easy, if not to trace out the development -of Theistic ideas, at any rate to point to their probable course of -growth amongst all peoples. - -Keightley, in his "Origin of Mythology," says: "Supposing, for the sake -of hypothesis, a race of men in a state of total or partial ignorance of -Deity, their belief in many Gods may have thus commenced: They saw -around them various changes brought about by human agency, and hence -they knew the power of intelligence to produce effects. When they beheld -other and greater effects, they ascribed them to some unseen being, -similar but superior to man." They associated particular events with -special unknown beings (Gods), to each of whom they ascribed either a -peculiarity of power, or a sphere of action not common to other Gods. -Thus, one was God of the sea, another God of war, another God of love, -another ruled the thunder and lightning; and thus through the various -then known elements of the universe, and the passions of humankind. - -This mythology became modified with the commencement of human knowledge. -The ability to think has proved itself oppugnant to, and destructive of, -the reckless desire to worship, characteristic of semi-barbarism. -Science has razed altar after altar heretofore erected to the unknown -Gods, and has pulled down Deity after Deity from the pedestals on which -ignorance and superstition had erected them. The priest, who had -formerly spoken as the oracle of God, lost his sway just in proportion -as the scientific teacher succeeded in impressing mankind with a -knowledge of the facts around them. The ignorant, who had hitherto -listened unquestioning during centuries of abject submission to their -spiritual preceptors, at last commenced to search and examine for -themselves, and were guided by experience rather than by church -doctrine. To-day advancing intellect challenges the reserve guard of the -old armies of superstition, and compels a conflict in which humankind -must in the end have great gain by the forced enunciation of the truth. - -From the word "God" the Theist derives no argument in his favor; it -teaches nothing, defines nothing, demonstrates nothing, explains -nothing. The Theist answers that this is no sufficient objection; that -there are many words which are in common use to which the same objection -applies. Even if this were true, it does not answer the Atheist's -objection. Alleging a difficulty on the one side is not a removal of the -obstacle already pointed out on the other. - -The Theist declares his God to be not only immutable, but also -infinitely intelligent, and says: "Matter is either essentially -intelligent or essentially non-intelligent; if matter were essentially -intelligent, no matter could be without intelligence; but matter cannot -be essentially intelligent, because some matter is not intelligent, -therefore matter is essentially non-intelligent; but there is -intelligence, therefore there must be a cause for the intelligence, -independent of matter--this must be an intelligent being--i.e., God." -The Atheist answers: I do not know what is meant, in the mouth of the -Theist, by "matter." "Matter," "nature," "substance," "existence," are -words having the same signification in the Atheist's vocabulary. Lewes -used "matter" as the "symbol of all the known properties, statical and -dynamical, passive and active; i.e., subjectively, as feeling and change -of feeling, or objectively, as agent and action;" and Mill defined -"nature" as "the sum of all phenomena, together with the causes which -produce them, including not only all that happens, but all that is -capable of happening." It is not certain that the Theist expresses any -very clear idea to himself when he uses the words "matter" and -"intelligence;" it is quite certain that he has not yet shown himself -capable of communicating this idea, and that any effort he makes is -couched in terms which are self-contradictory. Reason and understanding -are sometimes treated as separate faculties, yet it is not unfair to -presume that the Theist would include them both under the word -intelligence. Perception is the foundation of the intellect. The -perceptive ability differs in each animal; yet, in speaking of matter, -the Theist uses the word "intelligence" as though the same meaning were -to be understood in every case. The recollection of the perceptions is -the exercise of a different ability from the perceptive ability, and -occasionally varies disproportionately; thus, an individual may have -great perceptive abilities, and very little memory, or the reverse; yet -memory, as well as perception, is included in intelligence. So also the -comparing between two or more perceptions; the judging and the -reflecting; all these are subject to the same remarks, and all these and -other phases of the mind are included in the word intelligence. We -answer, then, that "God" (whatever that word may mean) cannot be -intelligent. He can never perceive; the act of perception results in the -obtaining a new idea, but if God be omniscient, his ideas have been -eternally the same. He has either been always, and always will be, -perceiving, or he has never perceived at all. But God cannot have been -always perceiving, because, if he had, he would always have been -obtaining fresh knowledge, in which case he must at some time have had -less knowledge than now: that is, he would have been less perfect: that -is, he would not have been God. He can never recollect nor forget; he -can never compare, reflect, nor judge. There cannot be perfect -intelligence without understanding; but following Coleridge, -"understanding is the faculty of judging according to sense." The -faculty of whom? Of some person, judging according to that person's -senses. But has "God" senses? Is there anything beyond "God" for God to -sensate? There cannot be perfect intelligence without reason. By reason -we mean that phase of the mind which avails itself of past and present -experience to predicate more or less accurately of possible experience -in the future. To God there can be neither past nor future, therefore to -him reason is impossible. There cannot be perfect intelligence without -will; but has God will? If God wills, the will of the all-powerful must -be irresistible; the will of the infinite must exclude all other wills. - -God can never perceive. Perception and sensation are identical. Every -sensation is pleasurable or painful. But God, if immutable, can neither -be pleased nor pained. Every fresh sensation involves a change in mental -and perhaps in physical condition. God, if immutable, cannot change. -Sensation is the source of all ideas, but it is only objects external to -the mind which can be sensated. If God be infinite there can be no -objects external to him, and therefore sensation must be to him -impossible. Yet without perception where is intelligence? - -God cannot have memory nor reason--memory is of the past, reason for the -future, but to God immutable there can be no past, no future. The words -past, present, and future imply change: they assert progression of -duration. If God be immutable, to him change is impossible. Can you have -intelligence destitute of perception, memory, and reason? God cannot -have the faculty of judgment--judgment implies in the act of judging a -conjoining or disjoining of two or more thoughts, but this involves -change of mental condition. To God the immutable, change is impossible. -Can you have intelligence, yet no perception, no memory, no reason, no -judgment? God cannot think. The law of the thinkable is, that the thing -thought must be separated from the thing which is not thought. To think -otherwise would be to think of nothing--to have an impression with no -distinguishing mark, would be to have no impression. Yet this separation -implies change, and to God, immutable, change is impossible. In memory, -the thing remembered is distinguished from the thing temporarily or -permanently forgotten. Can God forget? Can you have intelligence without -thought? If the Theist replies to this, that he does not mean by -infinite intelligence as an attribute of Deity, an infinity of the -intelligence found in a finite degree in humankind, then he is bound to -explain, clearly and distinctly, what other "intelligence" he means; and -until this be done the foregoing statements require answer. - -The Atheist does not regard "substance" as either essentially -intelligent or the reverse. Intelligence is the result of certain -conditions of existence. Burnished steel is bright--that is, brightness -is the characteristic of a certain condition of existence. Alter the -condition, and the characteristic of the condition no longer exists. The -only essential of substance is existence. Alter the wording of the -Theist's objection:--Matter is either essentially bright, or essentially -non-bright. If matter were essentially bright, brightness should be the -essence of all matter; but matter cannot be essentially bright, because -some matter is not bright, therefore matter is essentially non-bright; -but there is brightness; therefore there must be a cause for this -brightness independent of matter--that is, there must be an essentially -bright being--i.e. God. - -Another Theistic proposition is thus stated: "Every effect must have a -cause; the first cause universal must be eternal: ergo, the first cause -universal must be God." This is equivalent to saying that "God" is -"first cause." But what is to be understood by cause? Defined in the -absolute, the word has no real value. "Cause," therefore, cannot be -eternal. What can be understood by "first cause?" To us the two words -convey no meaning greater than would be conveyed by the phrase "round -triangle." Cause and effect are correlative terms--each cause is the -effect of some precedent; each effect the cause of its consequent. It is -impossible to conceive existence terminated by a primal or initial -cause. The "beginning," as it is phrased, of the universe is not thought -out by the Theist, but conceded without thought. To adopt the language -of Montaigne; "Men make themselves believe that they believe." The -so-called belief in Creation is nothing more than the prostration of the -intellect on the threshold of the unknown. We can only cognise the -ever-succeeding phenomena of existence as a line in continuous and -eternal evolution. This line has to us no beginning; we trace it back -into the misty regions of the past but a little way, and however far we -may be able to journey there is still the great beyond. Then what is -meant by "universal cause?" Spinoza gives the following definition of -cause, as used in its absolute signification: "By cause of itself I -understand that, the essence of which involves existence, or that, the -nature of which can only be considered as existent." That is, Spinoza -treats "cause" absolute and "existence" as two words having the same -meaning. If this mode of defining the word be contested, then it has no -meaning other than its relative signification of a means to an end. -"Every effect must have a cause." Every effect implies the plurality of -effects, and necessarily that each effect must be finite; but how is it -possible from finite effect to logically deduce a universal--i.e., -infinite cause? - -There are two modes of argument presented by Theists, and by which, -separately or combined, they seek to demonstrate the being of a God. -These are familiarly known as the arguments _a priori and a posteriori._ - -The _a posteriori_ argument has been popularised in England by Paley, -who has ably endeavored to hide the weakness of his demonstration under -an abundance of irrelevant illustrations. The reasoning of Paley is very -deficient in the essential points where it most needed strength. It is -utterly impossible to prove by it the eternity or infinity of Deity. As -an argument founded on analogy, the design argument, as the best, could -only entitle its propounder to infer the existence of a finite cause, or -rather of a multitude of finite causes. It ought not to be forgotten -that the illustrations of the eye, the watch, and the man, even if -admitted as instances of design, or rather of adaptation, are instances -of eyes, watches, and men, designed or adapted out of pre-existing -substance, by a being of the same kind of substance, and afford, -therefore, no demonstration in favor of a designer alleged to have -actually created substance out of nothing, and also alleged to have -created a substance entirely different from himself. - -The illustrations of alleged adaptation or design in animal life in its -embryonic stages are thus dealt with by the late George Henry Lewes: -"What rational interpretation can be given to the succession of phases -each embryo is forced to pass through? None of these phases have any -adaptation to the future state of the animal, but are in positive -contradiction to it, or are simply purposeless; many of them have no -adaptation, even in its embryonic state. What does the fact imply? There -is not a single known organism which is not developed out of simpler -forms. Before it can attain the complex structure which distinguishes -it, there must be an evolution of forms which distinguish the structures -of organisms lower in the series. On the hypothesis of a plan which -pre-arranged the organic world, nothing could be more unworthy of a -supreme intelligence than this inability to construct an organism at -once, without making several tentative efforts, undoing to-day what was -so carefully done yesterday, and repeating for centuries the same -tentatives and the same corrections in the same succession. Do not let -us blink this consideration. There is a traditional phrase which is in -vogue amongst Anthropomorphists--a phrase which has become a sort of -argument--the 'Great Architect.' But if we are to admit the human point -of view, a glance at the facts of embryology must produce very -uncomfortable reflexions. For what shall we say to an architect who was -unable--or, being able, was obstinately unwilling--to erect a palace, -except by first using his materials in the shape of a hut, then pulling -them down and rebuilding them as a cottage, then adding storey to -storey, and room to room, not with any reference to the ultimate -purposes of a palace, but wholly with reference to the way in which -houses were constructed in ancient times? Would there be a chorus of -applause from the Institute of Architects, and favorable notices in -newspapers of this profound wisdom? Yet this is the sort of succession -on which organisms are constructed. The fact has long been familiar; how -has it been reconciled with infinite wisdom?" - -The _a posteriori_ argument can never demonstrate infinity for Deity. -Arguing from an effect finite in extent, the most it could afford would -be a cause sufficient for that effect, such cause being possibly finite -in extent and duration. Professor Flint in his late work in advocacy of -Theism concedes that "we cannot deduce the infinite from the finite." -And as the argument does not demonstrate God's infinity, neither can it, -for the same reason, make out his omniscience, as it is clearly -impossible to logically claim infinite wisdom for a God possibly only -finite. God's omnipotence remains unproved for the same reason, and -because it is clearly absurd to argue that God exercises power where he -may not be. Nor can the _a posteriori_ argument show God's absolute -freedom, for as it does nothing more than seek to prove a finite God, it -is quite consistent with the argument that God's existence is limited -and controlled in a thousand ways. Nor does this argument show that God -always existed; at the best, the proof is only that some cause, enough -for the effect, existed before it, but there is no evidence that this -cause differs from any other causes, which are often as transient as the -effect itself. And as it does not demonstrate that God has always -existed, neither does it demonstrate that he will always exist, or even -that he now exists. It is perfectly in accordance with the argument, and -with the analogy of cause and effect, that the effect may remain after -the cause had ceased to exist. Nor does the argument from design -demonstrate one God. It is quite consistent with this argument that a -separate cause existed for each effect, or mark of design discovered, or -that several causes contributed to some or one of such effects. So that -if the argument be true, it might result in a multitude of petty -Deities, limited in knowledge, extent, duration, and power; and still -worse, each one of this multitude of Gods may have had a cause which -would also be finite in extent and duration, and would require another, -and so on, until the design argument loses the reasoner amongst an -innumerable crowd of Deities, none of whom can have the attributes -claimed for God. - -The design argument is defective as an argument from analogy, because it -seeks to prove a Creator God who designed, but does not explain whether -this God has been eternally designing, which would be absurd; or, if he -at some time commenced to design, what then induced him so to commence? -It is illogical, for it seeks to prove an immutable Deity, by -demonstrating a mutation on the part of Deity. - -It is unnecessary to deal specially with each of the many writers who -have used from different stand-points the _a posteriori_ form of -argument in order to prove the existence of Deity. The objections -already stated apply to the whole class; and, although probably each -illustration used by the Theistic advocate is capable of an elucidation -entirely at variance with his argument, the main features of objection -are the same. The argument _a posteriori_ is a method of proof in which -the premises are composed of some position of existing facts, and the -conclusion asserts a position antecedent to those facts. The argument is -from given effects to their causes. It is one form of this argument -which asserts that a man has a moral nature, and from this seeks to -deduce the existence of a moral governor. This form has the disadvantage -that its premises are illusory. In alleging a moral nature for man, the -Theist overlooks the fact that the moral nature of man differs somewhat -in each individual, differs considerably in each nation, and differs -entirely in some peoples. It is dependent on organisation and education; -these are influenced by climate, food, and mode of life. If the argument -from man's nature could demonstrate anything, it would prove a murdering -God for the murderer, a lascivious God for the licentious man, a -dishonest God for the thief, and so through the various phases of human -inclination. The _a priori_ arguments are methods of proof in which the -matter of the premises exists in the order of conception antecedently to -that of the conclusion. The argument is from cause to effect. Amongst -the prominent Theistic advocates relying upon the _a priori_ argument in -England are Dr. Samuel Clarke, the Rev. Moses Lowman, and William -Gillespie. - -An important contribution to Theistic literature has been the -publication of the Baird lectures on Theism. The lectures are by -Professor Flint, who asks: "Have we sufficient evidence for thinking -that there is a self-existent, eternal being, infinite in power and -wisdom, and perfect in holiness and goodness, the Maker of heaven and -earth?" - -"Theism," he affirms, "is the doctrine that the universe owes its -existence, and continuance in existence, to the reason and will of a -self-existent Being, who is infinitely powerful, wise, and good. It is -the doctrine that nature has a Creator and Preserver, the nations a -Governor, men a heavenly Father and Judge." But he concedes that "Theism -is very far from co-extensive with religion. Religion is spread over the -whole earth; Theism only over a comparatively small portion of it. There -are but three Theistic religions--the Mosaic, the Christian, and the -Muhammadan. They are connected historically in the closest manner--the -idea of God having been transmitted to the two latter, and not -independently originated by them. All other religions are Polytheistic -or Pantheistic, or both together. Among those who have been educated in -any of these heathen religions, only a few minds of rare penetration and -power have been able to rise by their own exertions to a consistent -Theistic belief. The God of all those among us who believe in God, even -of those who reject Christianity, who reject all revelation, is the God -of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From these ancient Jewish fathers the -knowledge of him has historically descended through an unbroken -succession of generations to us. We have inherited it from them. If it -had not thus come down to us, if we had not been born into a society -pervaded by it, there is no reason to suppose that we should have found -it out for ourselves, and still less that we should merely have required -to open our eyes in order to see it." - -If "Theism is the doctrine that the universe owes its existence to the -reason and will of a self-existing being who is infinitely powerful, -wise, and good," then it is a doctrine which involves many difficulties -and absurdities. It assumes that the universe has not always existed. -The new existence added when the universe was originated was either an -improvement or a deterioration on what had always existed; or it was in -all respects precisely identical with what had therefore always existed. -In the first, if the new universe was an improvement, then the -previously self-existent being could not have been infinitely good. If -the universe was a deterioration, then the creator could have scarcely -been all-wise, or he could not have been all-powerful. If the universe -was in all respects precisely identical with the self-existent being, -then it must have been infinitely powerful, wise and good, and must have -been self-existent. - -Any of the alternatives is fatal to Theism. Again, if the universe owes -its existence to God's reason and will, God must, prior to creation, -have thought upon the matter until he ultimately determined to create; -but, if the creation were wise and good, it would never have been -delayed while the infinitely wise and good reasoned about it, and, if -the creation were not wise and good, the infinitely wise and good would -never have commenced it. Either God willed without motive, or he was -influenced; if he reasoned, there was--prior to the definite willing--a -period of doubt or suspended judgment, all of which is inconsistent with -the attributes claimed for deity by Professor Flint. It is hard to -understand how whole nations can have been left by their infinitely -powerful, wise, and good governor--how many men can have been left by -their infinitely powerful, wise, and good father--without any knowledge -of himself. Yet this must be so if, as Professor Flint conceives, Theism -is only spread over a comparatively small portion of the earth. The -moral effect of Christian and Muhammadan Theism on the nations -influenced, was well shown in the recent Russo-Turkish War. - -Every Theist must admit that if a God exists, he could have so convinced -all men of the fact of his existence that doubt, disagreement, or -disbelief would be impossible. If he could not do this, he would not be -omnipotent, or he would not be omniscient--that is, he would not be God. -Every Theist must also agree that if a God exists, he would wish all men -to have such a clear consciousness of his existence and attributes, that -doubt, disagreement, or disbelief on this subject would be impossible. -And this, if for no other reason, because that out of doubts and -disagreements on religion have too often resulted centuries of -persecution, strife, and misery, which a good God would desire to -prevent. If God would not desire this, then he is not all-good, that is, -he is not God. But as many men have doubts, as a large majority of -mankind have disagreements, and as some men have disbeliefs as to God's -existence and attributes, it must follow that God does not exist, or -that he is not all-wise, or that he is not all-powerful, or that he is -not all-good. - -Many Theists rely on the intuitional argument. It is, perhaps, best to -allow the Baird Lecturer to reply to these:--"Man, say some, knows God -by immediate intuition, he needs no argument for his existence, because -he perceives Him directly--face to face--without any medium. It is easy -to assert this but obviously the assertion is the merest dogmatism. Not -one man in a thousand who understands what he is affirming will dare to -claim to have an immediate vision of God, and nothing can be more likely -than that the man who makes such a claim is self-deluded." And Professor -Flint urges that: "What seem intuitions are often really inferences, and -not unfrequently erroneous inferences; what seem the immediate dictates -of pure reason, or the direct and unclouded perceptions of a special -spiritual faculty, may be the conceits of fancy, or the products of -habits and association, or the reflexions of strong feeling. A man must -prove to himself, and he must prove to others, that what he takes to be -an intuition, is an intuition. Is that proof in this case likely to be -easier or more conclusive than the proof of the Divine existence? The -so-called immediate perception of God must be shown to be a perception -and to be immediate; it must be vindicated and verified; and how this is -to be done, especially if there be no other reasons for believing in God -than itself, it is difficult to conceive. The history of religion, which -is what ought to yield the clearest confirmation of the alleged -intuition, appears to be from beginning to end a conspicuous -contradiction of it. If all men have the spiritual power of directly -beholding their Creator--have an immediate vision of God--how happens it -that whole nations believe in the most absurd and monstrous Gods? That -millions of men are ignorant whether there be one God or thousands?" And -still more strongly he adds: "The opinion that man has an intuition or -immediate perception of God is untenable; the opinion that he has an -immediate feeling of God is absurd." - -Every child is born into the world an Atheist, and if he grows into a -Theist, his Deity differs with the country in which the believer may -happen to be born, or the people amongst whom he may happen to be -educated. The belief is the result of education or organisation. This is -practically conceded by Professor Flint, where he speaks of the God-idea -as transmitted from the Jews, and says: "We have inherited it from them. -If it had not come down to us, if we had not been born into a society -pervaded by it, there is no reason to suppose that we should have found -it out for ourselves." And further, he maintains that a child is born -"into blank ignorance, and, if left entirely to itself, would, probably, -never find out as much religious truth as the most ignorant of parents -can teach it." Religious belief is powerful in proportion to the want of -scientific knowledge on the part of the believer. The more ignorant the -more credulous. In the mind of the Theist "God" is equivalent to the -sphere of the unknown; by the use of the word he answers, without -thought, problems which might otherwise obtain scientific solution. The -more ignorant the Theist, the more numerous his Gods. Belief in God is -not a faith founded on reason. Theism is worse than illogical; its -teachings are not only without utility, but of itself it has nothing to -teach. Separated from Christianity with its almost innumerable sects, -from Muhammadanism with its numerous divisions, and separated also from -every other preached system, Theism is a will-o'-the-wisp, without -reality. Apart from orthodoxy, Theism is the veriest dreamform, without -substance or coherence. - -What does Christian Theism teach? That the first man, made perfect by -the all-powerful, all-wise, all-good God, was nevertheless imperfect, -and by his imperfection brought misery into the world, where the -all-good God must have intended misery should never come; that this God -made men to share this misery--men whose fault was their being what he -made them; that this God begets a son, who is nevertheless his -unbegotten self, and that by belief in the birth of God's eternal son, -and in the death of the undying who died as sacrifice to God's -vengeance, men may escape the consequences of the first man's error. -Christian Theism declares that belief alone can save man, and yet -recognises the fact that man's belief results from teaching, by -establishing missionary societies to spread the faith. Christian Theism -teaches that God, though no respecter of persons, selected as his -favorite one nation in preference to all others; that man can do no good -of himself or without God's aid, but yet that each man has a free will; -that God is all-powerful, but that few go to heaven, and the majority to -hell; that all are to love God, who has predestined from eternity that -by far the largest number of human beings are to be burning in hell for -ever. Yet the advocates for Theism venture to upbraid those who argue -against such a faith. - -Either Theism is true or false. If true, discussion must help to spread -its influence; if false, the sooner it ceases to influence human conduct -the better for human kind. This Plea for Atheism is put forth as a -challenge to Theists to do battle for their cause, and in the hope that, -the strugglers being sincere, truth may give laurels to the victor and -the vanquished: laurels to the victor, in that he has upheld the truth; -laurels which should be even more welcome to the vanquished, whose -defeat crowns him with a truth he knew not of before. - -APPENDIX - -A few years ago a Nonconformist minister invited me to debate the -question, "Is Atheism the True Doctrine of the Universe?" and the -following was in substance my opening statement of the argument, which -for some reason, although many letters passed, was never replied to by -my reverend opponent. - -"By Atheism I mean the affirmation of one existence, of which existence -I know only mode; each mode being distinguished in thought by its -qualities. This affirmation is a positive, not a negative, affirmation, -and is properly describable as Atheism because it does not include in it -any possibility of _Theos_. It is, being without God, distinctly an -Atheistic affirmation. This Atheism affirms that the Atheist only knows -qualities, and only knows these qualities as the characteristics of -modes. By 'existence' I mean the totality of phenomena and all that has -been, is, or may be necessary for the happening of any and every -phenomenon. By 'mode' I mean each cognised condition (phenomenon or -aggregation of phenomena). By 'quality' I mean that characteristic, or -each of those characteristics, by which in thought I distinguish that -which I think. The word 'universe' is with me an equivalent for -'existence.' - -"Either Atheism or Theism must be the true doctrine of the Universe. I -assume here that no other theory is thinkable. Theism is either -Pantheism, Polytheism, or Monotheism. There is, I submit, no other -conceivable category. Pantheism affirms one existence, but declares that -some qualities are infinite, e.g. that existence is intelligent. Atheism -only affirms qualities for phenomena. We know each phenomenon by its -qualities; we know no qualities except as qualities of some phenomenon. -By infinite I mean illimitable. Phenomena are, of course, finite. By -intelligent I mean able to think. Polytheism affirms several Theistic -existences--this affirmation being nearly self-contradictory--and also -usually affirms at least one non-theistic existence. Monotheism affirms -at least two existences: that is, the Theos and that which the Theos has -created and rules. Atheism denies alike the reasonableness of -Polytheism, Pantheism, and Monotheism. Any affirmation of more than one -existence is on the face of the affirmation an absolute -self-contradiction, if infinity be pretended for either of the -existences affirmed. The word 'Theos' or 'God' has for me no meaning. I -am obliged, therefore, to try to collect its meaning as expressed by -Theists, who, however, do not seem to me to be either clear or agreed as -to the words by which their Theism may be best expressed. For the -purpose of this argument I take Monotheism to be the doctrine 'that the -universe owes its existence and continuance in existence to the wisdom -and will of a supreme, self-existent, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, -omniscient, righteous, and benevolent personal being, who is distinct -from and independent of what he has created.' By wisdom and will I mean -that which I should mean using the same words of any animal able to -perceive, remember, reflect, judge, and determine, and active in that -ability or those abilities. By supreme I mean highest in any relation of -comparison. By self-existent I mean that the conception of which, if it -be conceivable, does not involve the conception of antecedent or -consequent. By eternal and infinite I mean illimitable in duration and -extent. By 'omnipotent' I mean supreme in power over everything. By -omniscient, knowing everything. By 'righteous and benevolent' I mean -that which the best educated opinion would mean when applying those -words to human beings. This doctrine of Monotheism appears to me to be -flatly contradicted by the phenomena we know. It is inconsistent with -that observed uniformity of happening usually described as law of -nature. By law of nature I mean observed order of event. The word -'nature' is another equivalent for the word universe or existence. By -uniformity of happening I mean that, given certain conditions, certain -results always ensue--vary the conditions, the results vary. I do not -attack specially either the Polytheistic, Pantheistic, or Monotheistic -presentments of Theism. To me any pretence of Theism seems impossible if -Monism be conceded, and, therefore, at present, I rest content in -affirming one existence. If Monism be true, and Atheism be Monism, then -Atheism is necessarily the true theory of the universe. I submit that -'there cannot be more than one ultimate explanation' of the universe. -That any 'tracing back to two or more' existences is illogical, and that -as it is only by 'reaching unity' that we can have a reasonable -conclusion, it is necessary 'that every form of Dualism should be -rejected as a theory of the universe.' If every form of Dualism be -rejected, Monism, i.e. Atheism, alone remains, and is therefore the true -and only doctrine of the universe." - -Speaking of the prevalence of what he describes as "a form of -agnosticism," the editor of the _Spectator_ writes: "We think we see -signs of a disposition to declare that the great problem is insoluble, -that whatever rules, be it a mind or only a force, he or it does not -intend the truth to be known, if there is a truth, and to go on, both in -action and speculation, as if the problem had no existence. That is the -condition of mind, we know, of many of the cultivated who are not -sceptics, nor doubters, nor inquirers, but who think they are as certain -of their point as they are that the circle will not be squared. They -are, they think, in presence of a recurring decimal, and they are not -going to spend life in the effort to resolve it. If no God exists, they -will save their time; and if he does exist, he must have set up the -impenetrable wall. A distinct belief of that kind, not a vague, pulpy -impression, but a formulated belief, exists, we know, in the most -unsuspected places, its holders not unfrequently professing -Christianity, as at all events the best of the illusions; and it has -sunk very far down in the ladder of society. We find it catch classes -which have suddenly become aware that there is a serious doubt afloat, -and have caught something of its extent and force, till they fancy they -have in the doubt a revelation as certainly true as they once thought -the old certainty." Surely an active, honest Atheism is to be preferred -to the state of mind described in the latter part of the passage we have -just quoted. - - - - -A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE DEVIL - - -DEALING with the Devil has been a perilous experiment. In 1790, an -unfortunate named Andre Dubuisson, was confined in the Bastille, charged -with raising the Devil. In the reign of Charles I, Thomas Browne, -yeoman, was indicted at Middlesex Sessions, for that he did "wickedly, -diabolically, and feloniously make an agreement with an evil and impious -spirit, that he, the same Thomas Browne, would within ten days after his -death, give his soul to the same impious and evil spirit," for the -purpose of having a clear income of L2,000 a year. Thomas was found not -guilty. In 1682, three persons were hanged at Exeter, and in 1712, five -others were hanged at Northampton, for witchcraft and trafficking with -the Devil, who has been represented as a black-visaged, -sulphurous-constitutioned individual, horned like an old goat, with -satyr-like legs, a tail of unpleasant length, and a reckless disposition -to buy people presumably his without purchase. I intend to treat the -subject entirely from a Biblical point of view; the Christian Devil -being a Bible institution. I say the Christian Devil, because other -religions also have their Devils, and it is well to prevent confusion. I -frankly admit that none of these religions have a Devil so devilish as -that of the Christian. - -I am unable to say certainly whether I am writing about a singular Devil -or a plurality of Devils. In many texts "Devils" are mentioned -(Leviticus xvii, 7; Mark i, 34, &c.) recognising a plurality; in others -"the Devil" (Luke iv, 2), as if there was but one. Seven Devils went out -of Mary called Magdalene (Luke viii, 2). The Rev. P. Hains, a Wigan -church clergyman, tells me that where "Devils" are to be found in the -Gospels it is mistranslated and should be "Demons"--these being -apparently an inferior sort of Devils. Hershon (Talmudical Commentary on -Genesis, p. 299), quotes from Rabbi Yochanan, "There were three hundred -different species of male demons in Sichin, but what the female demon is -like I know not;" and from Rava, "If anyone wishes to see the demons -themselves let him burn and reduce to ashes the offspring of a -first-born black cat; let him put a little of it in his eyes and he will -see them." Assuming that either there is one Devil, more than one, or -less than one, and having thus cleared away mere numerical difficulties, -we will proceed to give the Devil his due. The word Satan occurs 1 -Samuel xxix, 4, and is there translated "adversary," (Cahen) "obstacle," -see also I Kings xi, 14. Satan appears either to have been a child of -God or a most intimate acquaintance of the family, for, on "a day when -the children of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan -came also amongst them," (Job I, 6) and no surprise or disapprobation is -manifested at his presence. Some trace in this the Persian demonology -where the good spirits surround Ormuzd and where Ahriman is the spirit -of evil. The conversation in the Book of Job between God and the Devil -has a value proportioned to the rarity of the scene and to the high -characters of the personages concerned, despite the infidel criticism of -Martin Luther, who condemns the Book of Job as "a sheer _argumentum -fabula_." A Christian ought to be surprised to find "God omniscient" -putting to Satan the query: Whence comest thou? for he cannot suppose -God, the all-wise, ignorant upon the subject. Satan's reply: "From going -to and fro in the earth, and from going up and down it," increases our -surprise and augments our astonishment. The true believer should be -astonished to find from his Bible that Satan could have gone to and fro -in the earth, and walked up and down it, and yet not have met God, if -omnipresent, at least occasionally, during his journeying. It is not -easy to conceive omnipresence absent, even temporarily, from every spot -where the Devil promenaded. The Lord makes no comment on Satan's reply, -but says: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like -him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and -escheweth evil?" It seems extraordinary that God should wish to have the -Devil's judgment on the only good man then living: the more -extraordinary, as God, the all-wise, knew Satan's opinion without asking -it, and God, the immutable, would not be influenced by the expression of -the Devil's views. Satan's answer is: "Doth Job fear God for naught? -Hast thou not made an hedge about him, and about all that he hath on -every side? Thou hast blest the work of his hand, and his substance is -increased in the land; but put forth thine hand now and touch all that -he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." God's reply to this -audacious declaration is: "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; -only upon himself put not forth thine hand." And this was Job's reward -for being a perfect and upright man, one that feared God and eschewed -evil. He was not actually sent to the Devil, but to the Devil was given -power over all that he had. Job lost all without repining, sons, -daughters, oxen, asses, camels, and sheep, all destroyed, and yet "Job -sinned not." Divines urge that this is a beautiful picture of patience -and contentment under wrong and misfortune. But it is neither good to -submit patiently to wrong, nor to rest contented under misfortune. It is -better to resist wrong; wiser to carefully investigate the causes of -wrong and misfortune, with a view to their removal. Contentment under -wrong is a crime; voluntary submission under oppression is no virtue. - -"Again, there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves -before the Lord [as if God's children could ever be absent from him], -and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. And -the Lord [again] said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan -answered the Lord and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from -walking up and down in it. And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou -considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth? a -perfect and upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and -still he holdeth fast his integrity, ALTHOUGH THOU MOVEDST ME AGAINST -HIM TO DESTROY HIM WITHOUT CAUSE." Can God be moved against a man to -destroy him without a cause? If so, God is neither immutable nor -all-wise. Yet the Bible puts into God's mouth the terrible admission -that the Devil had moved God against Job to destroy him without cause. -If true, it destroys alike God's goodness and his wisdom. - -But Satan answered the Lord and said: "Skin for skin, yea, all that a -man hath will he give for his life; put forth thine hand now and touch -his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face." - -Does the Lord now drive the Devil from his presence? Is there any -expression of wrath or indignation against this tempter? "The Lord said -unto Satan: Behold, he is in thine hand, but save his life." And Job, -being better than everybody else, finds himself smitten in consequence -with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. The ways of -the Lord are not as our ways, or this would seem the reverse of an -encouragement to virtue. - -In the account of the numbering by David, in one place "God," and in -another "Satan," occurs (1 Chron. xxi,1; 2 Sam. xxiv, 1), and to each -the same act of "moving" or "provoking" David to number his people is -attributed. There may be in this more harmony than ordinary men -recognise, for one erudite Bible commentator tells us, speaking of the -Hebrew word Azazel: "This terrible and venerable name of God, through -the pens of Biblical glossers, has been _a devil, a mountain, a -wilderness, and a he-goat._"[13] Well may incomprehensibility be an -attribute of deity when, even to holy and reverend fathers, God has been -sometimes undistinguishable from a he-goat or a Devil. Moncure D. Conway -writes: "There can be little question that the Hebrews, from whom the -Calvinist inherited his deity, had no Devil in their mythology, because -the jealous and vindictive Jehovah was quite equal to any work of that -kind--as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, bringing plagues upon the -land, or deceiving a prophet and then destroying him for his false -prophecies."[14] - - [13] G.R. Gliddon's extract from Land's "Sacra Scritura," chap, iii, - sec. 1. "Demonology and Devil-lore," vol. i, p. 11. - - [14] "Christian Records," by the Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 144. - -God is a spirit. Jesus is God. Jesus was led up of the Spirit to be -tempted of the Devil. All these propositions are equally credible. - -On the temptation of Jesus by the Devil, the Rev. Dr. Giles writes: -"That the Devil should appear personally _to the Son of God is certainly -not more wonderful_ than that he should, in a more remote age, have -appeared _among_ the Sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to -tempt and torment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus, -bodily and literally, through the air--first to the top of a high -mountain, and then to the topmost pinnacle of the temple--is wholly -inadmissible; it is an insult to our understanding."[15] It is pleasant -to find clergymen zealously repudiating their own creeds. - - [15] "Pilgrim's Progress from Methodism to Christianity." - -I am not prepared to speak strongly as to the color of the Devil. White -men paint him black; black men paint him white. He can scarcely be -colorless, as otherwise the Evangelists would have labored under -considerable difficulties in witnessing the casting out of the Devil -from the man in the synagogue (Luke iv, 35, 36).This Devil is described -as an unclean Devil. The Devils were subject to the 70 disciples whom -Jesus appointed to preach (Luke x, 17), and they are not unbelievers: -one text tells us that they believe and tremble (James ii, 19). It is a -fact of some poor Devils that the more they believe the more they -tremble. According to another text the Devil goeth about like a roaring -lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter v, 8), though the Devil's -"doctrines" presumably include vegetarianism (1 Timothy iv, 1, 3). I am -not sure what drinks devils incline to, though it is distinguished from -the wine of the communion (1 Corinthians x, 21). Devils should be a sort -of eternal salamanders, for there is everlasting fire prepared for the -Devil and his angels (Matt. xxv, 41); and there is a lake of brimstone -and fire, into which the Devil was cast (Rev. xx, 10). The Devil has, at -least upon one occasion, figured as a controversialist. For we learn -that he disputed with the arch-angel Michael, contending about the body -of Moses (Jude 9); in these degenerate days of personality in debate, it -is pleasant to know that the religious champion was very civil towards -his Satanic opponent. The Devil was imprisoned for 1,000 years in a -bottomless pit (Rev. xx, 2). If a pit had no bottom, it seems but little -confinement to shut the top. But, with faith and prayer even a good -foundation may be obtained for a bottomless pit. The writer of -Revelation, adopting the view of some Hebrew writers, speaks of "the -dragon, that old serpent which is the devil and Satan" and following -this, it is urged that the Devil was the serpent of Genesis--that is, -that it was really Satan who, in this guise, tempted Eve. There is this -difficulty in the matter--the Devil is a liar (John viii, 44); but in -the interview with Eve the serpent seems to have confined himself to the -strict truth (Gen. iii, 4, 5, 22). There is, in fact, no point of -resemblance--no horns, no hoof, nothing except a tail. - -Kalisch notes that "the Egyptians represented the eternal spirit Kneph, -the author of all good, under the mythic form" of the serpent, but they -employed the same symbol "for Typhon, the author of all moral and -physical evil, and in the Egyptian symbolical alphabet, the serpent -represents subtlety and cunning, lust, and sensual pleasure." - -The Old Testament speaks a little of the Devils, sometimes of Satan, but -never of "The Devil;" yet Matthew ushers him in, in the temptation -scene, without introduction, and as if he were an old acquaintance. I do -not remember reading in the Old Testament, anything about the lake of -brimstone and fire. Although Malachi iv, 1, speaks of the day "that -shall burn as an oven when the wicked shall be burned up." This feature -of faith was reserved for the warmth of Christian love to develop from -some of the Talmudical writers. The Rev. C. Boutell in his Bible -dictionary says, that, "it is at the least unfortunate that the word -'hell' should have been used as if the translation of the Hebrew -'sheol.'" Zechariah, in a vision, saw "Joshua, the High Priest, standing -before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to -resist him" (Zach-ariah iii, 1). Why the Devil wanted to resist Joshua -is not clear; but, as Joshua's garments were in a very filthy state, it -may be that he was preaching to the priest the virtues of cleanliness. -Jesus said that one of the twelve disciples was a Devil (John vi, 70). -You are told to resist the devil and he will flee from you (James iv, -7). If this be true, he is a cowardly Devil, and thus does not agree -quite with Milton's picture of his grand defiance, almost heroism. But -then Milton was a poet, and true religion has but little poetry in it. - -Jeroboam, one of the Jewish monarchs, ordained priests for the devils (2 -Chron. ix, 15). In the time of Jesus, Satan must, when not in the body -of some mad, deaf, dumb, blind, or paralytic person, have been -occasionally in heaven; for Jesus, on one occasion, told his disciples -that he saw Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven (Luke x, 18). Jesus -told Simon Peter that Satan desired to have him, that he might sift him -as wheat (Luke xxii, 31); perhaps Jesus was chafing his disciple. Paul, -the apostle, seems to have looked on the Devil much as some bigots look -on the police, for Paul delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, -that they might learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy i, 20). - -Revivalists are much indebted for their evanescent successes to hell and -the Devil. Thomas English, a fair specimen of those very noisy and -active preachers who do so much in promoting revivals, spoke of -"dwelling with devouring fire, bearing everlasting burning, roasting on -the Devil's spit, broiling on his gridiron, being pitched about with his -fork, drinking the liquid fire, breathing the brimstone fumes, drowning -in a red-hot sea, lying on fiery beds."[16] The vulgar tirades of -Reginald Radcliffe, Richard Weaver, and C. H. Spurgeon, will serve to -evidence that the above quotation is no exaggeration. In London, before -crowded audiences, Mr. Weaver, without originality, and with only the -merit of copied coarseness, has called upon the Lord to "shake the -ungodly for five minutes over the mouth of hell." Mr. Spurgeon has drawn -pictures of hell which, if true and revealed to him by God, would be -most disgustingly frightful, and which being but the creation of his own -morbid fancies, induce a feeling of contempt as well as disgust for the -teacher, who uses such horrible descriptions to affright his weaker -hearers. - - [16] Sharpe's "History of Egypt," p. 196. - -Calmet says that "By collecting all the passages where Satan (or the -Devil) is mentioned, it may be observed, that he fell from Heaven, with -all his company; that God cast him down from thence for the punishment -of his pride; and by his envy and malice, death, and all other evils -came into the world; that by the permission of God he exercises a sort -of government in the world over his subordinates, over apostate angels -like himself; that God makes use of him to prove good men, and to -chastise bad ones; that he is a lying spirit in the mouth of false -prophets, seducers, and heretics; that it is he, or some of his, that -torment, obsess, or possess men, that inspire them with evil designs, as -did _David_, when he suggested to him to number his people, and to -_Judas_ to betray _Jesus Christ_, and to Ananias and Sapphira to conceal -the price of their field. That he roves about full of rage, like a -roaring lion, to tempt, to betray, to destroy, and to involve us in -guilt and wickedness. - -"That his power and malice are restricted within certain limits, and -controlled by the will of God; that he sometimes appears to men to -seduce them; that he can transform himself into an angel of light; that -he sometimes assumes the form of a spectre, as he appeared to the -Egyptians while they were involved in darkness in the days of Moses; -that he creates several diseases to men; that he chiefly presides over -death, and bears aways the souls of the wicked to hell; that at present -he is confined to Hell, as in a prison, but that he will be unbound and -set at liberty in the year of _Anti-Christ_; that hell-fire is prepared -for him and his; that he is to be judged at the last day. But I cannot -perceive very clearly from scripture, that he torments the souls of the -wicked in hell, as we generally believe." - -In his interesting volume on Elizabethan demonology Mr. Spalding urges -that "the empire of the supernatural must obviously be most extended -where civilization is the least advanced," and he gives three reasons -for the belief in devils--1. "The apparent incapacity of the majority of -mankind to accept a purely monotheistic creed." 2. "The division of -spirits into hostile camps, good and evil." 3. "The tendency of all -theological systems to absorb into themselves the deities extraneous to -themselves, not as gods, but as inferior or even evil spirits." - -Even if I were a theist I should refuse to see in God a being omniscient -and omnipotent, who puts us into this world without our volition, leaves -us to struggle through it unequally pitted against an almost omnipotent -and super-subtle Devil; and who, if we fail, finally drops us out of -this world into Hell-fire, where a legion of inferior devils finds -constant and never-ending employment in inventing fresh tortures for us; -our crime being, that we have not succeeded where success was rendered -impossible. No high thinkings are developed by the doctrine of Devils -and damnation. If a potent faith, it degrades to imbecility alike the -teacher and the taught, by its abhorrent mercilessness; and if mere form -instead of a faith, then is the Devil doctrine a misleading sham. - - - - -WERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS? - - -THIS question, Were Adam and Eve our first parents? is indeed one of -vital importance. A negative answer is a denial of the whole Christian -scheme. The Christian theory is that Adam, the common father of the -whole human race, sinned, and by his sin dragged down all his posterity -to a state from which redemption was needed, and that Jesus is, and was, -the Redeemer, by whom all mankind are, and were, saved from the -consequences of the fall of Adam. If Adam therefore be not the first -man, if it is not to Adam the various races of mankind are indebted for -their origin, then the whole hypothesis of fall and redemption fails. - -It is impossible in the space of this pamphlet to give any statement and -analysis of the various hypotheses as to the origin of the human race; -that I have done at some length in my volume on "Genesis: its Authorship -and Authenticity." Personally I incline to favor the doctrine of a -plurality of sources for the various types of the human race. That -wherever the conditions for life have been, there also has been the -degree of life resultant on those conditions. My purpose here is not to -demonstrate the correctness of my own thinking, but rather to illustrate -the incorrectness of the Genesaical teaching. Were Adam and Eve our -first parents? On the one hand, an affirmative answer can be obtained -from the Bible, which, though in Genesis v, 2, using Adam as a -race-name, specifically asserts (ii, 22) Adam and Eve to be the first -man and woman made by God, and in the authorised version fixes the date -of their making about 6,000 years, little more or less, from the present -time. On the other hand, science emphatically declares man to have -existed on the earth for a far more extended period, affirms that as far -as we can trace man historically, we find him in isolated groups, -diverse in type, till we lose him in the ante-historic period; and with -nearly equal distinctness denies that the various existing races find -their common parentage in one pair. It is only on the first point that I -attack the Bible chronology of man's existence. I am aware that -calculations based upon the authorised version of the Old Testament -Scriptures are open to objection, and that while from the Hebrew 1,656 -years represent the period from Adam to the Deluge generally -acknowledged, the Samaritan Pentateuch only yields for the same period -1,307 years, while the Septuagint version furnishes 2,242 years; but a -most erudite Egyptologist, states a fatal objection to the Septuagint -chronology--i.e., that it makes Methuselah outlive the Flood.[17] The -Deluge occurred, according to the Septuagint, in the year of the world -2,242, and by adding up the generations previous to his (Methuselah's) -birth--Adam, 230; Seth, 205; Enos, 190; Cainan, 170; Mahaleel, 165; -Jared, 162; Enoch, 165; = 1,287--Methuselah was born in the year of the -world 1287. He lived 969 years, and therefore died in 2256. But this is -fourteen years after the Deluge. - - [17] "Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and Harmony of the Old - Testament." - -The Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, who wrote about 1644, fixes the month of -creation at September, 5,572 years preceding the date of his book, and -says that Adam was expelled from Eden on the day on which he was -created.[18] In my volume on Genesis (pp. 29-36) the reader will find -the chronology of Genesis carefully examined. For our immediate purpose -we will take the ordinary English Bible, which gives the following -result: From Adam to Abraham (Genesis v and xi), 2,008; Abraham to Isaac -(Genesis xxi, 5), 100; Isaac to Jacob (Genesis xxv, 26), 60; Jacob going -into Egypt (Genesis xlvii, 9), 130; Sojourn in Egypt (Exodus xii, 41), -430; Duration of Moses' leadership (Exodus vii, 7; xxxi, 2), 40; thence -to David, about 400; from David to Captivity, 14 generations (27), about -22 reigns, 473; Captivity to Jesus, 14 generations, about 5,934 = 234; -less disputed 230 years of sojourn in Egypt, 230 = 4,004. - - [18] Munks' "Palestine," p.231 - -These dates follow the Bible statement, and there is no portion of the -orthodox text, except the period of the Judges, which will admit any -considerable extension of the ordinary Oxford chronology. - -The Book of Judges is not a book of history. Everything in it is -recounted without chronological order. It will suffice to say that the -cyphers which we find in the Book of Judges and in the First Book of -Samuel yield us, from the death of Joshua to the commencement of the -reign of Saul, the sum-total of 500 years, which would make, since the -exodus from Egypt, 565 years; whereas the First Book of Kings counts but -480 years, from the going out of Egypt down to the foundation of the -temple under Solomon. According to this we must suppose that several of -the judges governed simultaneously.(19) - -Alfred Maury, in his profound essay on the classification of tongues, -traces back some of the ancient Greek mythologies to a Sanscrit source. -He has the following remark, worthy of earnest attention: "The God of -heaven, or the sky, is called by the Greek _Zeus Pater_; and let us have -notice that the pronunciation of Z resembles very much that of D, -inasmuch as the word Zeus becomes in the genitive (Dios). The Latins -termed the same God, _Dies-piter_, or Jupiter. Now in the Veda, the God -of heaven is called Dyashpitai." What is this but the original of our -own Christian God the father, the _Jeue_ pater of the Old Testament? The -Hebrew Records, whether or not God-inspired, are certainly not the most -antique. Neither is it true that the Hebrew mythology is the most -ancient, nor the Hebrew language the most primitive; on the contrary, -the mythology is clearly derived, and the language in a secondary or -tertiary state. - -The word Adam is first written as a proper name in Genesis ii, 19, but -the word written Adam is and this is found in Genesis i, 26, and in -several other verses. In i, 27, the word is used as if it meant not one -man only, but "male and female;" indeed v. 2, says, "male and female -created he them and blessed them and called their name Adam." Genesis -ii, 18, treats the man as alone, and 19 his name as Adam. - -What is the value of this Book of Genesis, the sole authority for the -hypothesis that Adam and Eve, about 6,000 years ago, were the sole -founders of the peoples now living on the face of the earth? Written we -know not by whom, we know not when, and we know not in what language. -Eusebius, Chrysostom, and Clemens Alexandrinus alike agree that the name -of Moses should not stand at the head of Genesis as the author of the -book. Origen did not hesitate to declare the contents of the first and -second chapters of Genesis to be purely figurative. Our translation of -it has been severely criticised by the learned and pious Bellamy, and by -the more learned and less pious Sir William Drummond. It has been -amended and revised in our own day. Errors almost innumerable have been -pointed out, the correctness of the Hebrew text itself questioned, and -yet this book is claimed as an unerring guide to the students of -ethnology. They may do anything, everything, except stray out of the -beaten track. We have, on the one hand, an anonymous book, which, for -the development of the diversities of the human family, does not even -take us back so much as 6,000 years. At least 1,600 years must be -deducted for the alleged Noachian deluge, when the world's inhabitants -were again reduced to one family, one race, one type. On the other hand, -we have now existing Esquimaux men, of the Arctic realm--Chinamen, of -the Asiatic realm--Englishmen, of the European realm--Sahara negroes, of -the African realm--Fuegians, of the American realm--New Zealanders, of -the Polynesian realm--the Malay, representative of the realm which bears -his name--the Tasmanian, of the Australian realm--with other families of -each realm, too numerous for mention here; dark and fair; black-skinned -and 'white-skinned; woolly-haired and straight-haired; low forehead, -high forehead; Hottentot limb, Negro limb, Caucasian limb. Do all these -different and differing structures and colors trace their origin to one -pair? To Adam and Eve, or rather to Noah and his family? Or are they -(the various races) indigenous to their native soils, and climates? And -are these various types naturally resultant, with all their differences, -from the differing conditions for life persistent to and consistent with -them? - -The question is really this--Have the different races of man all found -their common parent in Noah, about 4,300 years ago? Assuming the unity -of the races or species of men now existing, there are but three -suppositions on which the diversity now seen can be accounted for:-- - -"1st. A miracle or direct act of the Almighty, in changing one type into -another. - -"2nd. The gradual action of physical causes, such as climate, food, mode -of life, etc. - -"3rd. Congenital or accidental varieties."[20] - - [20] "Types of Mankind," Dr. Nott, p. 57. - -We may fairly dismiss entirely the question of miracle. Such a miracle -is nowhere recorded in the Bible, and it lies upon anyone hardy enough -to assert that the present diversity has a miraculous origin, to show -some kind of reasons for his faith, some kind of evidence to warrant our -conviction. Until this is done we need not dwell on the first -hypothesis. - -Of the durability of type under its own life conditions we have -overwhelming proof in the statue of an ancient Egyptian scribe, taken -from a tomb of the fifth dynasty, 5,000 years old, and precisely -corresponding to the Fellah of the present day.[21] The sand had -preserved the color of the statuette, which, from its portraitlike -beauty, marks a long era of art-progress preceding its production. It -antedates the orthodox era of the Flood, carries us back to a time when, -if the Bible were true, Adam was yet alive, and still we find before it -kings reigning and ruling in mighty Egypt. Can the reader wonder that -these facts are held to impeach the orthodox faith? - - [21] M. Pulzsky on Iconography--"Indigenous Races," p. 111. - -On the second point Dr. Nott writes: "It is a commonly received error -that the influence of a hot climate is gradually exerted on successive -generations, until one species of mankind is completely changed into -another This idea is proven to be false.... A sunburnt cheek is never -handed down to succeeding generations. The exposed parts of the body are -alone tanned by the sun, and the children of the white-skinned Europeans -in New Orleans, Mobile, and the West Indies are born as fair as their -ancestors, and would remain so if carried back to a colder climate.[22] -Pure negroes and negresses, transported from Central Africa to England, -and marrying among themselves, would never acquire the characteristics -of the Caucasian races; nor would pure Englishmen and Englishwomen, -emigrating to Central Africa, and in like manner intermarrying, ever -become negroes or negresses. The fact is, that while you don't bleach -the color out of the darkskinned African by placing him in London, you -bleach the life out of him; and vice versa with the Englishman.[23] For -a long time there has been ascribed to man the faculty of adapting -himself to every climate. The following facts will show the ascription a -most erroneous one, though human adaptability is very great: "In Egypt -the austral negroes are, and the Caucasian Memlooks were, unable to -raise up even a third generation; in Corsica French families vanish -beneath Italian summers. Where are the descendants of the Romans, the -Vandals, or the Greeks in Africa? In Modern Arabia, after Mahomed Ali -had got clear of the Morea War, 18,000 Arnaots (Albanians) were soon -reduced to some 400 men. At Gibraltar, in 1817, a negro regiment was -almost annihilated by consumption. In 1814, during the three weeks on -the Niger, 130 Europeans out of 145 caught African fever, and 40 died; -out of 158 negro sailors only eleven were affected, and not one died. In -1809 the British expedition to Welchereen failed in the Netherlands -through marsh fever. About the same time, in St. Domingo, about 15,000 -French soldiers died from malaria. Of 30,000 Frenchmen, only 8,000 -survived exposure to that Antillian island; while the Dominicanised -African negro, Toussaint l'Overture, retransported to Europe, was -perishing from the chill of his prison in France." - - [22] "Types of Mankind," p. 58. - - [23] "Indigenous Races of the Earth," p. 458. The alleged discovery of - whiteskinned negroes in Western Africa does not affect this - question; it is not only to the color of the skin but also to the - general negro characteristics that the above remarks apply. - -On the third point, again quoting Dr. Nott:-- - -"The only argument left, then, is that of congenital varieties or -peculiarities, which are said to spring up and be transmitted from -parent to child, so as to form new races. Let us pause for a moment to -illustrate this fanciful idea. The negroes of Africa, for example, are -admitted not to be offsets from some other race which have been -gradually blackened and changed in a moral and physical type by the -action of climate; but it is asserted that 'once, in the flight of ages' -some genuine little negro, or rather many such, were born of Caucasian, -Mongol, or other light-skinned parents, and then have turned about and -changed the type of the inhabitants of a whole continent. So in America, -the countless aborigines found on this continent, who we have reason to -believe were building mounds before the time of Abraham, are the -offspring of a race changed by accidental or congenital varieties. Thus, -too, old China, India, Australia, Oceana, etc., all owe their types, -physical and mental, to congenital and accidental varieties, and are -descended from Adam and Eve! Can human credulity go farther, or human -ingenuity invent any argument more absurd?"[24] - - [24] Nott and Gliddon, "Indigenous Races," p. 587. - -But even supposing these objections to the second and third suppositions -set aside, there are two other propositions which, if affirmed, as I -believe they may be, entirely overthrow the orthodox assertion: "That -Adam and Eve, six thousand years ago, were the first pair; and that all -diversities now existing must find their common source in Noah--less -than four thousand three hundred years from the present time." These two -are as follows: - -1. That man may be traced back on the earth long prior to the alleged -Adamic era. - -2. That there are diversities traceable as existing amongst the human -race four thousand five hundred years ago, as marked as in the present -day. - -To illustrate the position that man may be traced back to a period long -prior to the Adamic era, we refer our readers to the chronology of the -late Baron Bunsen, who, while allowing about - -22,000 years for man's existence on earth, fixes the following dates -after a patient examination of the Nilotic antiquities: - - Egyptians under a republican form................. 10,000 B.C. - - Ascension of Bytis, the Theban, 1st Priest King.... 9,085 - - Elective Kings in Egypt............................ 7,230 - - Hereditary Kings in Upper and Lower Egypt, - a double empire form............................... 5,143 - -The assertion of such an antiquity for Egypt is no modern hypothesis. -Plato puts language into the mouth of an Egyptian, first claiming in -that day an antecedent of 10,000 years for painting and sculpture in -Egypt. This has long been regarded as fabulous, because it was contrary -to the Hebrew chronology. - -There are few who now pretend that the whole _creation_ (?) took place -6,000 years ago, although, if it be true that God made all in six days, -and man on the sixth, then the universe would only be more ancient than -Adam by some five days. To state the age of the earth at 6,000 years is -simply preposterous when it is estimated that it would require about -4,000,000 of years for the formation of the fossiliferous rocks alone, -and 15,000,000 of years have been stated as a moderate estimate for the -antiquity of our globe. The deltas of the great rivers of Hindustan -afford corroboration as to man's antiquity. In Egypt the delta of the -Nile, formed by immense quantities of sedimentary matter, which in like -manner is still carried down and deposited, has not perceptibly -increased during the last 3,000 years. "In the days of the earliest -Pharaohs, the delta, as it now exists, was covered with ancient cities -and filled with a dense population, whose civilisation must have -required a period going back far beyond any date that has yet been -assigned to the deluge of Noah, or even to the creation of the -world."[25] - - [25] Gliddon's "Types of Mankind," p. 335. - -From borings which have been made at New Orleans to the depth of 600 -feet, from excavations for public works, and from examinations in parts -of Louisiana, where the range between high and low water is much greater -than it is at New Orleans, no less than ten distinct cypress forests, -divided from each other by eras of aquatic plants, etc., have been -traced, arranged vertically above each other, and from these and other -data it is estimated by Dr. Benet Dowler that the age of the delta is at -least about 158,000 years, and in the excavations above referred to, -human remains, have been found below the further forest level, making it -appear that the human race existed in the delta of the Mississippi more -than 57,000 years ago.[26] - - [26] "Types," p. 336 to 369. - -It is further urged by the same competent writer that human bones -discovered on the coast of Brazil, near Santas, and on the borders of a -lake called Lagoa Santa, by Captain Elliott and Dr. Lund, thoroughly -incorporated with a very hard breccia, every one in a fossil state, -demonstrate that aboriginal man in America antedates the Mississippi -alluvia, and that he can even boast a geological antiquity, because -numerous species of animals have become extinct since American -humanity's first appearance.[27] - - [27] "Types," pages 350 and 357. - -With reference to the possibility of tracing back the diversities of the -human race to an antediluvian date, it is amply sufficient to point on -the one side to the remains of the American Indian disentombed from the -Mississippi forests, and on the other to the Egyptian monuments, tombs, -pyramids, and stuccoes, revealing to us Caucasian men and Negro men, -their diversities as marked as in the present day. Sir William Jones in -his day, claimed for Sanscrit literature a vast antiquity, and asserted -the existence of the religions of Egypt, Greece, India, and Italy, prior -to the Mosaic Era. So far as Egypt is concerned the researches of -Lepsius, Bunsen, Champollion, Lenormant, Gliddon, and others have fully -verified the position of the learned president of the Asiatic Society. -In "Genesis: its Authorship and Authenticity," pp. 88-21, I have -collected other testimony on this point. - -We have Egyptian statues of the third dynasty, going back far beyond the -4,300 years which would give the orthodox era of the deluge, and taking -us over the 4,500 years fixed by our second proposition. The fourth -dynasty is rich in pyramids, tombs, and statues; and according to -Lepsius, this dynasty commenced 3,426 B.C., or about 5,287 years from -the present date. - -Works on the orthodox side constantly assume that the long chronologists -must be in error, because their views do not coincide with orthodox -teachings. Orthodox authors treat their heterodox brethren as unworthy -of credit, because of their heterodoxy. One writer asserts,[28] that the -earliest reference to Negro tribes is in the era of the 12th dynasty. -Supposing for a moment this to be correct, what even then will be the -state of the argument? The 12th dynasty, according to Lepsius ends about -4,000 years ago. The orthodox chronology fixes the deluge about 300 -years earlier. Will any sane man argue that there was sufficient lapse -of time in three centuries for the development of Caucasian and Negro -man from one family? - - [28] "Archaia," p. 406. - -We trace back the various types of man now known, not to one centre, not -to one country, not to one family, not to one pair, but we trace them to -different centres, to distinct countries, to separate families, probably -to many pairs. Wherever the conditions for life are found, there are -living beings also. The conditions of climate, soil, etc., of Central -Africa differ from those of Europe. The indigenous races of Central -Africa differ from those of Europe. Geology has helped us very little as -to the prehistoric types of man, but its aid has nevertheless been -sufficient to far outdate the one man Adam of 6,000 years ago. - -I challenge the ordinary orthodox assertion of Adamic unity of origin -accompanied as it is by threats of pains and penalties if rejected; I am -yet ready to examine it, if it can be presented to me associated with -facts, and divested of those future hell-fire torments and present -societarian persecutions which now form its chief, if not sole, -supports. - -The rejection of the Bible account of the peopling of the world involves -also the rejection of the entire scheme of Christianity. According to -the orthodox rendering of both New and Old Testament teaching, all men -are involved in the curse which followed Adam's sin. But if the account -of the Fall be mythical, not historical; if Adam and Eve--supposing them -to have ever existed--were preceded on the earth by many nations and -empires, what becomes of the doctrine that Jesus came to redeem mankind -from a sin committed by one who was not the common father of all -humanity? - -Reject Adam, and you cannot accept Jesus. Refuse to believe Genesis, and -you cannot give credence to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. The Old -and New Testaments are so connected together, that to dissolve the union -is to destroy the system. The account of the Creation and Fall of Man is -the foundation-stone of the Christian Church--if this stone be rotten, -the superstructure cannot be stable. - - - - -NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM - - -MOST undoubtedly father Abraham is a personage whose history should -command attention, if only because he figures as the founder of the -Jewish race--a race which, having been promised protection and favor by -Deity, appear in the large majority of cases to have experienced little -else besides the sufferance of misfortune and misery themselves, or its -infliction upon others. Men are taught to believe that God, following -out a solemn covenant made with Abraham, suspended the course of nature -to aggrandise the Jews; that he promised always to bless and favor them -if they adhered to his worship and obeyed the priests. The promised -blessings were usually: political authority, individual happiness and -sexual power, long life, and great wealth; the threatened curses for -idolatry or disobedience: disease, loss of property and children, -mutilation, death. Amongst the blessings: the right to kill, plunder, -and ravish their enemies, with protection, whilst pious, against any -subjection to retaliatory measures. And all this because they were -Abraham's children! - -Abraham is especially an important personage to the orthodox -Church-going Christian. Without Abraham, no Jesus, no Christianity, no -Church of England, no bishops, no tithes, no church-rates. But for -Abraham, England would have lost all these blessings. Abraham was the -great-grandfather of Judah, the head of the tribe to which God's -mother's husband, Joseph, belonged. - -In gathering materials for a short biographical sketch, we are at once -comforted and dismayed by the fact that the only reliable account of -Abraham's career is that furnished by the book of Genesis, supplemented -by a few brief references in other parts of the Bible, and that, outside -"God's perfect and infallible revelation to man," there is no reliable -account of Abraham's existence at all. We are comforted by the thought -that, despite the new edition of the "Encyclopaedia Britannica," Genesis -is unquestioned by the faithful, and is at present protected by Church -and State against heretic assaults; but we are dismayed when we think -that, if Infidelity, encouraged by Colenso, Kalisch, Professor Robertson -Smith, and Professor Wellhausen, upsets Genesis, Abraham will have -little historical support. The Talmudical notices of Abraham are too -wonderful for irreverent criticism. Some philologists have asserted that -Brama and Abraham are alike corruptions of Abba Rama, or Abrama, and -that Sarah is identical with Sarasvati. Abram, is a Chaldean compound, -meaning father of the elevated, or exalted father. [--Hebrew--] is a -compound of Chaldee and Arabic, signifying father of a multitude. In -part v. of his work, Colenso mentions that Adonis was formerly -identified with Abram, "high father," Adonis being the personified sun. - -Leaving incomprehensible problems in philology for the ordinary -authorised version of our Bibles, we find that Abraham was the son of -Terah. The Talmud[29] says that Abraham's mother was Amathlai, the -daughter of Karnebo (Bava Bathra, fol. 1, col. 1.) The text does not -expressly state where Abraham was born, and I cannot therefore describe -his birth-place with that accuracy of detail which a true believer might -desire, but he "dwelt in old time on the other side of the flood" -(Joshua xxiv, 2 and 3). Abraham was born when Terah, his father, was -seventy years of age; and, according to Genesis, Terah and his family -came forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and went to Haran and dwelt there. -We turn to the map to look for Ur of the Chaldees, anxious to discover -it as possibly Abraham's place of nativity, but find that the -translators of God's inspired word have taken a slight liberty with the -text by substituting "Ur of the Chaldees" for "Aur Kasdim," the latter -being, in plain English, _the light of the magi, or conjurors, or -astrologers_ is stated by Kalisch to have been made the basis for many -extraordinary legends, as to Abraham's rescue from the flames. In the -Talmud P'sachim, fol. 118, col. 1, it is written that "At the time when -Nimrod the wicked had cast our Father Abraham into the fiery furnace, -Gabriel stood forth in the presence of the Holy one--blessed be He!--and -said, 'Lord of the universe, let me, I pray thee, go down and cool the -furnace, and deliver that righteous one from it.'" - - [29] The quotations are taken from Hershon's Talmudical Miscellany. - -Abraham, being born--according to Hebrew chronology, 2,083 years after -the creation, and according to the Septuagint 3,549 years after that -event--when his father was seventy, grew so slowly that when his father -reached the good old age of 205 years, Abraham had only arrived at 75 -years, having, apparently, lost no less than 60 years' growth during his -father's fife-time. St. Augustine and St. Jerome gave this up as a -difficulty inexplicable. Calmet endeavors to explain it, and makes it -worse. It is surely impossible Abraham could have lived 135 years, and -yet be only 75 years of age? - -"The Lord" spoke to Abraham, and promised to make of him a great nation, -to bless those who blessed Abraham, and to curse those who cursed him. I -do not know precisely which Lord it was that spake unto Abraham, the -Hebrew says it was Jeue, or, as our translators call it, Jehovah, but as -God said (Exodus vi, 2) that by the name "Jehovah was I not known" to -either Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, either the omniscient Deity had -forgotten the matter, or a counterfeit Lord had assumed the name. The -word Jehovah, which the book of Exodus says Abraham did not know, is -nearly always the name by which Abraham addresses, or speaks of, the -Jewish Deity. - -Abraham having been promised protection by the God of Truth, initiated -his public career with a diplomacy of statement worthy Talleyrand. He -represented his wife Sarah as his sister, which, if true, is a sad -reproach to the marriage. The Talmud, when Abram came into Egypt, asks: -"Where was Sarah? He confined her in a chest, into which he locked her, -lest anyone should gaze on her beauty. When he came to the receipt of -custom, he was summoned to open the chest, but declined, and offered -payment of the duty. The officers said: 'Thou carryest garments;' and he -offered duty for garments. 'Nay, it is gold thou carriest;' and he -offered the impost laid on gold. Then they said: 'It is costly silks, -belike pearls, thou concealest;' and he offered the custom on such -articles. At length the Egyptian officers insisted, and he opened the -box. And when he did so, all the land of Egypt was illumined by her -beauty" (Bereshith Rabba, chap. 40). The ruling Pharaoh, hearing the -beauty of Sarah commended, took her into his house, she being at that -time a fair Jewish dame, between 60 and 70 years of age, and he -entreated Abraham well for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen, asses -and servants, and camels. We do not read that Abraham objected in any -way to the loss of his wife. The Lord, who is all-just, finding out that -Pharaoh had done wrong, not only punished the king, but also punished -the king's household, who could hardly have interfered with his -misdoings. Abraham got his wife back, and went away much richer by the -transaction. Whether the conduct of father Abraham in pocketing quietly -the price of the insult--or honor--offered to his wife, is worthy modern -imitation, is a question only within the competence of episcopal -authority. After this Abraham was very rich in "silver and gold." So was -the Duke of Marlborough after the Duke of York had taken his sister in -similar manner into his house. In Gen. xii, 19, there is a curious -mistranslation in our version. The text is: "It is for that I had taken -her for my wife;" our version has: "I _might have taken_ her." The Douay -so translates as to take a middle phrase, leaving it doubtful whether or -not Pharaoh actually took Sarah as his wife. In any case, the Egyptian -king acted far the better of the twain. Abraham plays the part of a -timorous, contemptible hypocrite. Strong enough to have fought for his -wife, he sold her. Yet Abraham is blessed, and his conduct is our -pattern! - -Despite his timorousness in the matter of his wife, Abraham was a man of -wonderful courage and warlike ability. To rescue his relative, Lot--with -whom he could not live on the same land without quarrelling, both being -religious--he armed 318 servants, and fought with four powerful kings, -defeating them and recovering the spoil. Abraham's victory was so -decisive, that the King of Sodom, who fled and fell (xiv, 10) in a -previous encounter, now met Abraham alive (see verse 17), to -congratulate him on his victory. Abraham was also offered bread and wine -by Melchisedek, King of Salem, priest of the Most High God. Where was -Salem? Some identify it with Jerusalem, which it cannot be, as Jebus was -not so named until after the time of the Judges (Judges xix, 10). How -does this King of this unknown Salem, never heard of before or after, -come to be priest of the Most High God? These are queries for -divines--orthodox disciples believe without inquiring. Melchisedek was -most unique as far as genealogy is concerned. He had no father. He was -without mother also; he had no beginning of days or end of life, and -must be therefore at the present time an extremely old gentleman, who -would be an invaluable acquisition to any antiquarian Bible Evidence -Association fortunate enough to cultivate his acquaintance. God having -promised. Abraham a numerous family, and the promise not having been in -any part fulfilled, the patriarch grew uneasy, and remonstrated with the -Lord, who explained the matter thoroughly to Abraham when the latter was -in a deep sleep, and a dense darkness prevailed. Religious explanations -come with greater force under these or similar conditions. Natural or -artificial light and clear-sightedness are always detrimental to -spiritual manifestations. - -Abraham's wife had a maid named Hagar, and she bore to Abraham a child -named Ishmael; at the time Ishmael was born, Abraham was 86 years of -age. Just before Ishmael's birth Hagar was so badly treated that she ran -away. As she was only a slave, God persuaded Hagar to return and humble -herself to her mistress. Thirteen years afterwards God appeared to -Abraham, and instituted the rite of circumcision--which rite had been -practised long before by other nations--and again renewed the promise. -The rite of circumcision was not only practised by nations long anterior -to that of the Jews, but appears in many cases not even to have been -pretended as a religious rite (See Kalisch, Genesis, p. 386; Cahen, -Genese, p. 43). After God had "left off talking with him, God went up -from Abraham." As God is infinite, he did not, of course, go up; but -still the Bible says God went up, and it is the duty of the people to -believe that he did so, especially as the infinite Deity then and now -resides habitually in "heaven" wherever that may be. Again the Lord -appeared to Abraham, either as three men or angels or as one of the -three, and Abraham, hospitably inclined, invited the three to wash their -feet and to rest under the tree, and gave butter and milk and dressed -calf, tender and good, to them, and they did eat; and after the enquiry -as to where Sarah then was, the promise of a son is repeated. -Sarah--then by her own admission an old woman, stricken in -years--laughed when she heard this, and the Lord said: "Wherefore did -Sarah laugh?" and Sarah denied it; but the Lord said: "Nay, but thou -didst laugh." The three men then went toward Sodom, and Abraham with -them as a guide; and the Lord explained to Abraham that some sad reports -had reached him about Sodom and Gomorrah, and that he was then going to -find out whether the report was reliable. God is omnipresent, and was -always therefore at Sodom and Gomorrah, but had apparently been -temporarily absent; he is omniscient, and therefore knew everything -which was happening at Sodom and Gomorrah, but he did not know whether -or not the people were as wicked they had been represented to him. God, -Job tells us, "put no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged -with folly." Between the rogues and the fools, therefore, the allwise -and all-powerful God seems to be liable to be misled by the reports made -to him. Two of the three men or angels went on to Sodom, and left the -Lord with Abraham, who began to remonstrate with Deity on the wholesale -destruction contemplated, and asked him to spare the city if fifty -righteous should be found within it. God said: "If I find fifty -righteous within the city, then will I spare the place for their sakes." -God, being all-wise, knew there were not fifty in Sodom, and was -deceiving Abraham. By dint of hard bargaining in thorough Hebrew fashion -Abraham, whose faith seemed to be tempered by distrust, got the -stipulated number reduced to ten, and then "the Lord went his way." - -Jacob Ben Chajim, in his introduction to the Rabbinical Bible (p. 28), -tells us that the Hebrew text used to read in verse 22: "And Jehovah -still stood before Abraham;" but the scribes altered it, and made -Abraham stand before the Lord, thinking the original text offensive to -Deity. - -Genesis xviii has given plenty of work to the divines. Augustine -contended that God can take food, though he does not require it. Justin -compared "the eating of God with the devouring power of the fire." -Kalisch sorrows over the holy fathers "who have taxed all their -ingenuity to make the act of eating compatible with the attributes of -Deity." - -In the Epistle to the Romans Abraham's faith is greatly praised. We are -told (iv, 19 and 20) that: "Being not weak in faith, he considered not -his own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither -yet the deadness of Sarah's womb. He staggered not at the promise of God -through unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God." Yet, so -far from Abraham giving God glory, Genesis xvii, 17, says that: "Abraham -fell upon his face and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be -born unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is -ninety years old, bear?" The Rev. Mr. Boutell says that "the declaration -which caused Sarah to 'laugh' shows the wonderful familiarity which was -then permitted to Abraham in his communications with God." - -After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham journeyed south and -sojourned in Gerar, and, either untaught or too well taught by his -previous experience, again represented his wife as his sister, and -Abimelech, king of Gerar, sent and took Sarah. As before, we find -neither remonstrance nor resistance recorded on the part of Abraham. -This time God punished the women in Abimelech's house for an offence -they did not commit, and Sarah was again restored to her husband, with -sheep, oxen, men-servants, women-servants, and money. Infidels object -that the Bible says Sarah "was old and well stricken in age;" that "it -had ceased to be with her after the manner of women;" that she was more -than 90 years of age; and that it is not likely King Abimelech would -fall in love with an ugly old woman; but if Genesis be true, it is clear -that Sarah had not ceased to be attractive, as God resorted to especial -means to protect her from Abimelech. At length Isaac was born, and his -mother Sarah urged Abraham to expel Hagar and her son, "and the thing -was very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son;" the mother -being only a bondwoman does not seem to have troubled him. God, however, -approving Sarah's notion, Hagar was expelled, "and she departed and -wandered in the wilderness, and the water was spent in the bottle, and -she cast the child under one of the shrubs." She had apparently carried -the child, who--being at least more than 14, and according to some -calculations as much as 17 years of age--must have been a heavy child to -carry in a warm climate. - -The Talmud says: "On the day when Isaac was weaned Abraham made a great -feast, to which he invited all the people of the land. Not all of those -who came to enjoy the feast believed in the alleged occasion of its -celebration, for some said contemptuously, 'This old couple have adopted -a foundling, and provided a feast to persuade us to believe that the -child is their own offspring.' What did Abraham do? He invited all the -great men of the day, and Sarah invited their wives, who brought their -infants, but not their nurses, along with them. On this occasion Sarah's -breasts became like two fountains, for she supplied, of her own body, -nourishment to all the children. Still some were unconvinced, and said, -'Shall a child be born to one that is a hundred years old, and shall -Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear?' (Gen. xvii, 17). Whereupon, to -silence this objection, Isaac's face was changed, so that it became the -very picture of Abraham's; then one and all exclaimed, 'Abraham begat -Isaac'" (Bara Metzia, fol. 87, col. 1). - -God never did tempt any man at any time, but he "did tempt Abraham" to -kill Isaac by offering him as a burnt offering. The doctrine of human -sacrifice is one of the holy mysteries of Christianity, as taught in the -Old and New Testament. Of course, judged from a religious or Biblical -stand-point, it cannot be wrong, as, if it were, God would not have -permitted Jephtha to sacrifice his daughter by offering her as a burnt -offering, nor have tempted Abraham to sacrifice his son, nor have said -in Leviticus, "None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be -redeemed; but shall surely be put to death" (xxvii, 29), nor have in the -New Testament worked out the monstrous sacrifice of his only son Jesus, -at the same time son and begetting father. - -Abraham did not seem to be entirely satisfied with his own conduct when -about to kill Isaac, for he not only concealed from his servants his -intent, but positively stated that which was not true, saying, "I and -the lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you." If he meant -that he and Isaac would come again to them, then he knew that the -sacrifice would not take place. Nay, Abraham even deceived his own son, -who asked him where was the lamb for the burnt offering? But we learn -from the New Testament that Abraham acted in this and other matters "by -faith," so his falsehoods and evasions, being results and aids of faith, -must be dealt with in an entirely different manner from transactions of -every day life. Just as Abraham stretched forth his hand to slay his -son, the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and prevented the -murder, saying, "Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not -withheld thy son." This conveys the impression that up to that moment -the angel of the Lord was not quite certain upon the subject. - -In Genesis xiii God says to Abraham, "Lift up now thine eyes, and look -from the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward, -and westward. For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, -and to thy seed for ever. Arise, walk through the land, in the length of -it, and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee." Yet, as is -admitted by the Rev. Charles Boutell, in his "Bible Dictionary," "The -only portion of territory in that land of promise, of which Abraham -became possessed," was a graveyard, which he had bought and paid for. -Although Abraham was too old to have children before the birth of Isaac, -he had many children after Isaac [was] born. He lived to "a good old -age" and died "full of years," but was yet younger than any of those who -preceded him, and whose ages are given in the Bible history, except -Nahor. - -According to the Talmud, as Abraham was very pious so were his very -camels, for they would not enter into a place where there were idols -(Avoth d' Rabbi Nathan, chap. 8). - -Abraham gave "all that he had to Isaac," but appears to have distributed -the rest of the property amongst his other children, who were sent to -enjoy it somewhere down East. - -According to the New Testament, Abraham is now in Paradise, but Abraham -in heaven is scarcely an improvement upon Abraham on earth. When he was -entreated by an unfortunate in hell for a drop of water to cool his -tongue, father Abraham replied: "Son, remember that in thy lifetime thou -receivedst thy good things, and now thou art tormented," as if the -reminiscence of past good would alleviate present and future continuity -of evil. - -Rabbi Levi says that Abraham sits at the gate of hell and does not -permit any circumcised Israelite to enter (Yalkut Shimoni, fol. 33, col. -2, sec. 18). - -The Talmud declares that "Abraham was a giant of giants; his height was -as that of _seventy-four_ men put together. His food, his drink, and his -strength were in the proportion of seventy-four men's to one man's. He -built an iron city for the abode of his seventeen children by Keturah, -the walls of which were so lofty that the sun never penetrated them; he -gave them a bowl full of precious stones, the brilliancy of which -supplied them with light in the absence of the sun." (Sophrim, chap. -21). - - - - -NEW LIFE OF JACOB - - -IT ought to be pleasant work to present sketches of God's chosen people. -More especially should it be an agreeable task to recapitulate the -interesting events occurring during the life of a man whom God has -loved. Jacob was the son of Isaac; the grandson of Abraham. These three -men were so free from fault, their lives so unobjectionable, that the -God of the Bible delighted to be called the "God of Abraham, the God of -Isaac, and the God of Jacob." It is true that Abraham owned slaves, was -not always exact to the truth, and, on one occasion, turned his wife and -child out to the mercies of a sandy desert; that Isaac in some sort -followed his father's example and disingenuous practices; and that Jacob -was without manly feeling, a sordid, selfish, unfraternal cozener, a -cowardly trickster, a cunning knave; but they must nevertheless have -been good men, for God was "the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and -the God of Jacob." The name Jacob is not inappropriate. Kalisch -says--"This appellation, if taken in its obvious etymological meaning, -implies a deep ignominy: for the root from which it is derived signifies -_to deceive, to defraud_, and in such a despicable meaning the same form -of the word is indeed used elsewhere" (Jeremiah ix, 3.). Jacob would, -therefore, be nothing else but the crafty _impostor_; in this sense -Esau, in the heat of his animosity, in fact clearly explains the word, -"justly is his name called Jacob (cheat) because he has cheated me -twice." (Genesis xxvii, 36.) Pious Jews in the formula for blessing the -new moon are taught in the Kabbalah "to meditate on the initials of the -four divine epithets which form Jacob." According to the ordinary -orthodox Bible chronology, Jacob was born about 1836 or 1837 B.C., that -is, about 2168 years from "in the beginning," his father Isaac being -then sixty years of age. There is a difficulty connected with Holy -Scripture chronology which would be insuperable were it not that we have -the advantage of spiritual aids in elucidation of the text. This -difficulty arises from the fact that the chronology of the Bible, in -this respect, like the major portion of Bible history, is utterly -unreliable. But we do not look to the Old or New Testament for mere -common-place, every-day facts--if we do, severe will be the -disappointment of the truth-seeker--we look there for mysteries, -miracles, paradoxes, and perplexities, and have no difficulty in -[finding] the objects of our search. Jacob was born, together with his -twin brother, Esau, in consequence of special entreaty addressed by -Isaac to the Lord on behalf of Re-bekah, to whom he had been married -about nineteen years, and who was yet childless. Infidel physiologists -(and it is a not unaccountable fact, that all who are physiologists are -also in so far infidel) assert that prayer would do little to repair the -consequence of such disease, or such abnormal organic structure, as had -compelled sterility. But our able clergy are agreed that the Bible was -not intended to teach us science; or, at any rate, we have learned that -its attempts in that direction are most miserable failures. Its mission -is to teach the unteachable: to enable us to comprehend the -incomprehensible. Before Jacob was born God decreed that he and his -descendants should obtain the mastery over Esau and his descendants: -"the elder shall serve the younger." (Gen. xxv, 23) The God of the Bible -is a just God, but it is hard for weak flesh to discover the justice of -this proemial decree, which so sentenced to servitude the children of -Esau before their father's birth. Jacob came into the world holding by -his brother's heel, like some cowardly knave in the battle of life, who, -not daring to break a gap in the hedge of conventional prejudice, which -bars his path, is yet ready enough to follow some bolder warrior, and to -gather the fruits of his courage. "And the boys grew: and Esau was a -cunning hunter, a man of the field: and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling -in tents." One day, Esau returned from his hunting, faint and wearied to -the very point of death. He was hungry, and came to Jacob, his twin and -only brother, saying, "Feed me, I pray thee" (Ibid., xxv, 30) "for I am -exceedingly faint." (Douay Version) In a like case would not any man so -entreated immediately offer to the other the best at his command, the -more especially when that other is his only brother, born at the same -time, from the same womb, suckled at the same breast, fed under the same -roof? But Jacob was not merely a man and a brother, he was one of God's -chosen people, and one who had been honored by God's prenatal selection. -"If a man come unto me and hate not his brother, he cannot be my -disciple." So taught Jesus the Jew, in after time, and in this earlier -age Jacob the Jew, in practice, anticipated the later doctrine. It is -one of the misfortunes of theology, if not its crime, that profession of -love to God is often accompanied with bitter and active hate of man. -Jacob was one of the founders of the Jewish race, and even in this their -prehistoric age, the instinct for driving a hard bargain seems strongly -developed. "Jacob said" to Esau, "Sell me this day thy birthright." The -famished man vainly expostulated, and the birthright was sold for a mess -of pottage. If to-day one man should so meanly and cruelly take -advantage of his brother's necessities to rob him of his birthright, all -good and honest men would shun him as an un-brotherly scoundrel, and -most contemptible knave; yet, less than - -4,000 years ago, a very different standard of morality must have -prevailed. Indeed, if God is unchangeable, divine notions of honor and -honesty must to-day be widely different from those of our highest men. -God approved and endorsed Jacob's conduct. His approval is shown by his -love, afterwards expressed for Jacob; his endorsement by his subsequent -attention to Jacob's welfare. We may learn from this tale, so pregnant -with instruction, that any deed which to the worldly and sensible man -appears like knavery while understood literally becomes to the devout -and prayerful man an act of piety when understood spiritually. Pious -preachers and clever commentators declare that Esau despised his -birthright. I do not deny that they might back their declaration by -scripture quotations, but I do deny that the narrative ought to convey -any such impression. Esau's words were, "Behold I am at the point to -die: and what profit shall this birthright be to me?" - -Bereshith Rabba, cap. 95, says that "wherever Jacob resided, he studied -the law as his fathers did," and it adds, "How is this, seeing that the -law had not yet been given?" There is no record that Esau also studied -the law, and there is no mention of any legal proceedings to set aside -this very questionable birthright transfer. - -Isaac growing old, and fearing from his physical infirmities the near -approach of death, was anxious to bless Esau before he died, and -directed him to take quiver and bow and go out in the field to hunt some -venison for a savory meat, such as old Isaac loved. Esau departed, but -when he had left his father's presence in order to fulfil his request, -Jacob appeared on the scene. Instigated by his mother, he, by an abject -stratagem, passed himself off as Esau. With a savory meat prepared by -Rebekah, he came into his father's presence, and Isaac said, "Who art -thou, my son?" Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. The Lord loved -Jacob, yet Jacob lied to his old blind father, saying, "I am Esau thy -firstborn." Isaac had some doubts: these are manifested by his inquiring -how it was that the game was killed so quickly. Jacob, whom God loved, -in a spirit of shameless blasphemy replied, "Because the Lord thy God -brought it to me." Isaac still hesitated, fancying that he recognised -the voice to be the voice of Jacob, and again questioned him, saying, -"Art thou my very son Esau?" God is the God of truth and loved Jacob, -yet Jacob said, "I am." Then Isaac blessed Jacob, believing that he was -blessing Esau and God permitted the fraud to be successful, and himself -also blessed Jacob. In that extraordinary composition known as the -Epistle to the Hebrews, we are told that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob. -But what faith had Isaac? Faith that Jacob was Esau? His belief was -produced by deceptive appearances. His faith resulted from false -representations. And there are very many men in the world who have no -better foundation for their religious faith than had Isaac when he -blessed Jacob, believing him to be Esau. In the Douay Bible I find the -following note on this remarkable narrative: "St. Augustine (_L. contra -mendacium_, c. 10), treating at large upon this place, excuseth Jacob -from a lie, because this whole passage was mysterious, as relating to -the preference which was afterwards to be given to the Gentiles before -the carnal Jews, which Jacob, by prophetic light, might understand. So -far it is certain that the first birthright, both by divine election and -by Esau's free cession, belonged to Jacob; so that if there were any lie -in the case, it would be no more than an officious and venial one." How -glorious to be a patriarch, and to have a real saint laboring years -after your death to twist your lies into truth by aid of prophetic -light! Lying is at all times most disreputable, but at the deathbed the -crime is rendered more heinous. The death hour would have awed many men -into speaking the truth, but it had little effect on Jacob. Although -Isaac was about to die, this greedy knave cared not, so that he got from -the dying man the sought-for prize. God is said to love righteousness -and hate iniquity, yet he loved the iniquitous Jacob, and hated the -honest Esau. All knaves are tinged more or less with cowardice. Jacob -was no exception to the rule. His brother, enraged at the deception -practised upon Isaac, threatened to kill Jacob. Jacob was warned by his -mother and fled. Induced by Rebekah, Isaac charged Jacob to marry one of -Laban's daughters. On the way to Haran, where Laban dwelt, Jacob rested -and slept. While sleeping he dreamed; ordinarily, dreams have little -significance, but in the Bible they are more important. Some of the most -weighty and vital facts of the Bible are communicated in dreams; and -rightly so; if the men had been wideawake they would have probably -rejected the revelation as absurd. So much does that prince of darkness, -the devil, influence mankind against the Bible in the day time, that it -is when all is dark, and our eyes are closed, and the senses dormant, -that God's mysteries are most clearly seen and understood. Jacob "saw in -his sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching -heaven; the angels also, of God ascending and descending by it, and the -Lord leaning upon the ladder (Gen. xxviii, 12 and 13, Douay Version). In -the ancient temples of India, and in the mysteries of Mithra, the -seven-stepped ladder by which the spirits ascended to heaven is a -prominent feature, and one of probably far higher antiquity than the age -of Jacob. Did paganism furnish the groundwork for the patriarch's dream? -"No man hath seen God at anytime." God is "invisible." Yet Jacob saw the -invisible God, whom no man hath seen or can see, either standing above a -ladder or leaning upon it. True, it was all a dream. Yet God spoke to -Jacob, but perhaps that was a delusion too. We find by scripture that -God threatens to send to some "strong delusions that they might believe -a lie and be damned." Poor Jacob was much frightened; as any one might -be, to dream of God leaning on so long a ladder. What if it had broken, -and the dreamer underneath it? Jacob's fears were not so powerful but -that his shrewdness and avarice had full scope in a sort of half-vow, -halfcontract, made in the morning. Jacob said, "If God will be with me -and will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat, -and raiment to put on, so that I shall come again to my father's house -in peace, then shall the Lord be my God." The inference deducible from -this conditional statement is, that if God failed to complete the items -enumerated by Jacob, then the latter would have nothing to do with him. -Jacob was a shrewd Jew, who would have laughed to scorn the preaching -"Take no thought, saying, what shall we eat? or, what shall we drink? -or, wherewithal shall we be clothed?" - -After this contract Jacob went on his journey, and reached the house of -his mother's brother, Laban, into whose service he entered. "Diamond cut -diamond" would be an appropriate heading to the tale which gives the -transactions between Jacob the Jew and Laban the son of Nahor. Laban had -two daughters. Rachel, the youngest, was "beautiful and well-favored;" -Leah, the elder, was "blear-eyed." Jacob served for the pretty one; but -on the wedding day Laban made a feast, and when evening came gave Jacob -the ugly Leah instead of the pretty Rachel. Jacob being (according to -Josephus) both in drink and in the dark, it was morning ere he -discovered his error. After this Jacob served for Rachel also, and then -the remainder of the chapter of Jacob's servitude to Laban is but the -recital of a series of frauds and trickeries. Jacob embezzled Laban's -property, and Laban misappropriated and changed Jacob's wages. In fact, -if Jacob had not possessed the advantage of divine aid, he would -probably have failed in the endeavor to cheat his master, but God, who -says "thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything that is -thy neighbor's," encouraged Jacob in his career of covetous criminalty. -At last Jacob, having amassed a large quantity of property, determined -to abscond from his employment, and taking advantage of his uncle's -absence at sheepshearing "he stole away unawares," taking with him his -wives, his children, flocks, herds, and goods. To crown the whole, -Rachel, worthy wife of a husband so fraudulent, stole her father's gods. - -But in those days God's ways were not as our ways. God came to Laban in -a dream and compounded the felony, saying, "Take heed thou speak not -anything harshly against Jacob."[30] This would probably prevent Laban -giving evidence in a police court against Jacob, and thus save him from -transportation or penal servitude. After a reconciliation and treaty had -been effected between Jacob and Laban, the former went on his way "and -the angels of God met him." Balaam's ass, at a later period, shared the -good fortune which was the lot of Jacob, for that animal also had a -meeting with an angel. Jacob was the grandson of the faithful Abraham to -whom angels also appeared. It is somewhat extraordinary that Jacob -should have manifested no surprise at meeting a host of angels. Still -more worthy of note is it that our good translators elevate the same -words into "angels" in verse 1, which they degrade into "messengers" in -verse 3. John Bellamy, in his translation, says the "angels" were not -immortal angels, and it is very probable John Bellamy was right. Jacob -sent messengers before him to Esau, and heard that the latter was coming -to meet him followed by 400 men. Jacob, a timorous knave at best, became -terribly afraid. He, doubtless, remembered the wrongs inflicted upon -Esau, the cruel extortion of the birthright, and the fraudulent -obtainment of the dying Isaac's blessing. He, therefore, sent forward to -his brother Esau a large present as a peace offering. He also divided -the remainder of his flocks, herds, and goods, into two divisions, that -if one were smitten, the other might escape; sending these on, he was -left alone. While alone he wrestled with either a man, or an angel, or -God. The text says "a man," the heading to the chapter says "an angel" -and Jacob himself says that he has "seen God face to face." Whether God, -angel, or man, it was not a fair wrestle, and were the present editor of -Bell's Life referee, he would, unquestionably, declare it to be most -unfair to touch "the hollow of Jacob's thigh" so as to put it "out of -joint," and consequently, award the result of the match to Jacob. Jacob, -notwithstanding the injury, still kept his grip, and the apocryphal -wrestler, finding himself no match at fair struggling, and that foul -play was unavailing, now tried entreaty, and said, "Let me go, for the -day breaketh." Spirits never appear in the day time, when if they did -appear, they could be seen and examined; they are often more visible in -the twilight, in the darkness, and in dreams. Jacob would not let go: -his life's instinct for bargaining prevailed, and probably, because he -could get nothing else, he insisted on his opponent's blessing, before -he let him go. In the Roman Catholic version of the Bible there is the -following note:--"Chap. xxxii, v. 24. _A man, etc_.This was an angel in -human shape, as we learn from _Osee_ (c. xii, v. 4). He is called God -(xv, 28 and 30), because he represented the son of God. This wrestling, -in which Jacob, assisted by God, was a match for an angel, was so -ordered (v. 28) that he might learn by this experiment of the divine -assistance, that neither Esau, nor any other man, should have power to -hurt him." How elevating it must be to the true believer to conceive God -helping Jacob to wrestle with his own representative. On the morrow -Jacob met Esau. - - [30] Genesis, xxxi, v. 24, Douay version. - -"And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and -kissed[31] him; and they wept." - - [31] The Talmud says: "Read not 'and he kissed him,' but read 'and he - bit him'" (Pirke d'Rab Eliezer, chap. 36); and Rabbi Yanai says: - "Esau did not come to kiss him, but to bite him; only the neck of - Jacob our father became as hard as marble, and this blunted the - teeth of the wicked one. And what is taught by the expression 'And - they wept?' 'The one wept for his neck, and the other for his - teeth" ("Midrash Rabbah," c. 68). Aben Ezra says that this - exposition is only fit for children. - -"And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he -said, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord." "And Esau said, -I have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself." - -"The last portion of the history of Jacob and Esau", writes G. J. -Holyoake, "is very instructive. The coward fear of Jacob to meet his -brother is well delineated. He is subdued by a sense of his treacherous -guilt. The noble forgiveness of Esau invests his memory with more -respect than all the wealth Jacob won, and all the blessings of the Lord -he received. Could I change my name from Jacob to Esau, I would do it in -honor of him. The whole incident has a dramatic interest. There is -nothing in the Old or New Testament equal to it. The simple magnanimity -of Esau is scarcely surpassed by anything in Plutarch. In the conduct of -Esau, we see the triumph of time, of filial affection, and generosity -over a deep sense of execrable treachery, unprovoked and irrevocable -injury." Was not Esau a merciful, noble, generous man? Yet God hated -him, and shut him out of all share in the promised land. Was not Jacob a -mean, prevaricating knave: a crafty, abject cheat? Yet God loved and -rewarded him. How great are the mysteries in this Bible representation -of an all-good and all-loving God, thus hating good, and loving evil! At -the time of the wrestling a promise was made, which is afterwards -repeated by God to Jacob, that the latter should not be any more called -Jacob, but Israel. This promise was not strictly kept; the name "Jacob" -being used repeatedly, mingled with that of Israel in the after part of -Jacob's history. Jacob had a large family; his sons are reputedly the -heads of the twelve Jewish tribes. Joseph, who was much loved by his -father, was sold by his brethren into slavery. This transaction does not -seem to have called for any special reproval from God. Joseph, who from -early life was skilled in dreams, succeeded by interpreting the visions -of Pharaoh in obtaining a sort of premiership in Egypt; while filling -which office he, like more modern Prime Ministers, "placed his father -and his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in -the best of the land." Joseph not only gave his own family the best -place in the land, but he also, by a trick of statecraft, obtained the -land for the king, made slaves of the people, and made it a law over the -land of Egypt that the king should be entitled to one-fifth of the -produce, always, of course, excepting and saving the rights of the -priest. Judah, another brother, sought to have burned a woman by whom he -had a child. A third, named Reuben, was guilty of the grossest vice, -equalled only by that of Absalom the son of David; of Simeon and Levi, -two more of Jacob's sons, it is said that "instruments of cruelty were -in their habitations;" their conduct, as detailed in the 34th chapter of -Genesis, alike shocks by its treachery and its mercilessness. After -Jacob had heard that his son Joseph was governor in Egypt, but before he -had journeyed farther than Beersheba, God spake unto him in the visions -of the night, and probably forgetting that he had given him a new name, -or being more accustomed to the old one, said, "Jacob, Jacob," and then -told him to go down into Egypt; where Jacob died after a residence of -about seventeen years, when 147 years of age.[32] Before Jacob died he -blessed first the sons of Joseph, and then his own children, and at the -termination of his blessing to Ephraim and Manasseh, we find the -following speech addressed to Joseph, "Moreover I have given to thee one -portion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite -with my sword and with my bow." This speech implies warlike pursuits on -the part of Jacob, of which the Bible gives no record, and which seem -incompatible with his recorded life. The sword of craft and the bow of -cunning are the only weapons in the use of which he was skilled. When -his sons murdered and robbed the Hivites, fear seems to have been -Jacob's most prominent characteristic. - - [32] Bava Bathra, fol. 17, col. 1, says: "Over six the angel of death - had no dominion and these were: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses, - Aaron, and Miriam," and it also says that these and Benjamin, the - son of Jacob, "are seven who are not consumed by the worm in the - grave." - -The Talmud says: "The sons of Esau, of Ishmael, and of Keturah, went on -purpose to dispute the burial (of Jacob); but when they saw that Joseph -had placed his crown upon the coffin, they did the same with theirs." -There were _thirty-six_ crowns in all, tradition says. "And they mourned -with a great and very sore lamentation." Even the very horses and asses -joined in it, we are told. On arriving at the cave of Machpelah, Esau -once more protested, and said, "Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac -and Rebekah, are all buried here. Jacob disposed of his share when he -buried Leah in it, and the remaining one belongs to me." "But thou didst -sell thy share with thy birthright," remonstrated the sons of Jacob. -"Nay," rejoined Esau, "that did not include my share in the burial -place." "Indeed it did," they argued, "for our father, just before he -died, said (Gen. i, 5), 'In my grave which I have bought for myself.'" -"Where are the title-deeds?" demanded Esau. "In Egypt," was the answer. -And immediately the swiftfooted Naphthali started for the records ("So -light of foot was he," says the Book of Jasher, "that he could go upon -the ears of corn without crushing them"). Hushim, the son of Dan, being -deaf, asked what was the cause of the commotion. On being told what it -was, he snatched up a club and smote Esau so hard that his eyes dropped -out and fell upon the feet of Jacob, at which Jacob opened his eyes and -grimly smiled (Soteh, fol. 13, col. 1). - - - - -NEW LIFE OF MOSES - - -THE "Life of Abraham" was presented to our readers, because, as the -nominal founder of the Jewish race, his position entitled him to that -honour. The "Life of David," because, as one of the worst men and worst -kings ever known, his history might afford matter for reflection to -admirers of monarchical institutions and matter for comment to the -advocates of a republican form of government. The "Life of Jacob" served -to show how basely mean and contemptibly deceitful a man might become, -and yet enjoy God's love. Having given thus a brief outline of the -career of the patriarch, the king, and the knave, the life of a priest -naturally presents itself as the most fitting to complement the present -quadrifid series. - -Moses, the great grandson of Levi, was born in Egypt, not far distant -from the banks of the Nile, a river world-famous for its inundations, -made familiar to ordinary readers by the travellers who have journeyed -to discover its source, and held in bad repute by strangers, especially -on account of the carnivorous Saurians who infest its waters. The mother -and father of our hero were both of the tribe of Levi, and were named -Jochebed and Amram. The infant Moses was, at the age of three months, -placed in an ark of bulrushes by the river's brink. This was done in -order to avoid the decree of extermination propounded by the reigning -Pharaoh against the male Jewish children. The daughter of Pharaoh, -coming down to the river to bathe, found the child and took compassion -upon him, adopting him as her son. Of the early life of Moses we have -but scanty record. We are told in the New Testament that he was learned -in the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts vii, 21), and that "when he was -come to years he refused" by faith (Hebrews, xi, 24) "to be called the -son of Pharaoh's daughter." Perhaps the record from which the New -Testament writers quoted has been lost; it is certain that the present -version of the Old Testament does not contain those statements. The -record which is lost may have been God's original revelation to man, and -of which our Bible may be an incomplete version. I am little grieved by -the supposition that a revelation may have been lost, being, for my own -part, more inclined to think that no revelation has ever been made. -Josephus says that, when quite a baby, Moses trod contemptuously on the -crown of Egypt. The Egyptian monuments and Exodus are both silent on -this point. Josephus also tells us that Moses led the Egyptians in war -against the Ethiopians, and married Tharbis, the daughter of the -Ethiopian monarch. This also is omitted both in Egyptian history and in -the sacred record. When Moses was grown, according to the Old Testament, -or when he was 40 years of age according to the New, "it came into his -heart to visit his brethren the children of Israel," "And he spied an -Egyptian smiting an Hebrew;" "And he looked this way and that way, and -when he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in -the sand." The New Testament says that he did it, "for he supposed that -his brethren would understand how that God, by his hand, would deliver -them." (Acts vii, 25) But this is open to the following objections:--The -Old Testament says nothing of the kind;--there was no man to see the -homicide, and as Moses hid the body, it is hard to conceive how he could -expect the Israelites to understand a matter of which they not only had -no knowledge whatever, but which he himself did not think was known to -them;--if there were really no man present, the story of the after -accusation against Moses needs explanation;--it might be further -objected that it does not appear that Moses at that time did even -himself conceive that he had any mission from God to deliver his people. -Moses fled from the wrath of Pharaoh, and dwelt in Midian, where he -married the daughter of one Reuel or Raguel, or Jethro. This name is not -of much importance, but it is strange that if Moses wrote the books of -the Pentateuch he was not more exact in designating so near a relation. -While acting as shepherd to his father-in-law, "he led the flock to the -back side of the desert," and "the angel of the Lord appeared to him in -a flame of fire:" that is, the angel was either a flame, or was the -object which was burning, for this angel appeared in the midst of a bush -which burned with fire, but was not consumed. This flame appears to have -been a luminous one, for it was a "great sight," and attracted Moses, -who turned aside to see it. But the luminosity would depend on substance -ignited and rendered incandescent. Is the angel of the Lord a substance -susceptible of ignition and incandesence? Who knoweth? If so, will the -fallen angels ignite and burn in hell? God called unto Moses out of the -midst of the bush. It is hard to conceive an infinite God in the middle -of a bush, yet as the law of England says that we must not "deny the -Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of divine authority," -in order not to break the law, I advise all to believe that, in addition -to being in the middle of a bush, the infinite and all-powerful God also -sat on the top of a box, dwelt sometimes in a tent, afterwards in a -temple; although invisible, appeared occasionally; and, being a spirit -without body or parts, was hypostatically incarnate as a man. Moses, -when spoken to by God, "hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon -God." If Moses had known that God was _invisible_, he would have escaped -this fear. God told Moses that the cry of the children of Israel had -reached him, and that he had _come down_ to deliver them, and that Moses -was to lead them out of Egypt. Moses does not seem to have placed entire -confidence in the phlegomic divine communication, and asked, when the -Jews should question him on the name of the Deity, what answer should he -make? It does not appear from this that the Jews, if they had so -completely forgotten God's name, had much preserved the recollection of -the promise comparatively so recently made to Abraham, to Isaac, and to -Jacob. The answer given according to our version is, "I am that I am;" -according to the Douay, "I am who am." God, in addition, told Moses that -the Jews should spoil the Egyptians of their wealth; but even this -promise of plunder, so congenial to the nature of a bill-discounting Jew -of the Bible type, did not avail to overcome the scruples of Moses. God -therefore taught him to throw his rod on the ground, and thus transform -it into a serpent, from which pseudo-serpent Moses at first fled in -fear, but on his taking it by the tail it resumed its original shape. -Moses, with even other wonders at command, still hesitated; he had an -impediment in his speech. God cured this by the appointment of Aaron, -who was eloquent, to aid his brother. God directed Moses to return to -Egypt, but his parting words must somewhat have damped the future -legislator's hope of any speedy or successful ending to his mission. God -said, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart that he shall not let the people -go." On the journey back to Egypt God met Moses "by the way in the inn, -and sought to kill him." I am ignorant as to the causes which prevented -the omnipotent Deity from carrying out his intention; the text does not -explain the matter, and I am not a bishop or a D.D., and I do not -therefore feel justified in putting my assumptions in place of God's -revelation. Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, and asked that the Jews -might be permitted to go three days' journey in the wilderness; but the -King of Egypt not only refused their request, but gave them additional -tasks, and in consequence Moses and Aaron went again to the Lord, who -told them, "I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the -name of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them." -Whether God had forgotten that the name Jehovah was known to Abraham, or -whether he was here deceiving Moses and Aaron, are points the solution -of which I leave to the faithful referring them to the fact that Abraham -called a place (Genesis xxii, 14) Jehovah-Jireh. After this Moses and -Aaron again went to Pharaoh and worked wonderfully in his presence. -Thaumaturgy is coming into fashion again, but the exploits of Moses far -exceeded any of those performed by Mr. Home or the Davenport Brothers. -Aaron flung down his rod, and it became a serpent; the Egyptian -magicians flung down their rods, which became serpents also; but the rod -of Aaron, as though it had been a Jew money-lender or a tithe collecting -parson, swallowed up these miraculous competitors, and the Jewish -leaders could afford to laugh at their defeated rival conjurors. Moses -and Aaron carried on the miracle-working for some time. All the water of -the land of Egypt was turned by them into blood, but the magicians did -so with their enchantments, and it had no effect on Pharaoh. Then -showers of frogs, at the instance of Aaron, covered the land of Egypt; -but the Egyptians did so with their enchantments, and frogs abounded -still more plentifully. The Jews next tried their hands at the -production of lice, and here--to the glory of God be it said--the -infidel Egyptians failed to imitate them. It is written that -"cleanliness is next to godliness," but we cannot help thinking that -godliness must have been far from cleanliness when the former so soon -resulted in lice. The magicians were now entirely discomfited. The -preceding wonders seem to have affected all the land of Egypt; but in -the next miracle the swarms of flies sent were confined to Egyptians -only, and were not extended to Goshen, in which the Israelites dwelt. - -The next plague in connection with the ministration of Moses and Aaron -was that "all the cattle of Egypt died." After "all the cattle" were -dead, a boil was sent, breaking forth with blains upon man and beast. -This failing in effect, Moses afterwards stretched forth his hand and -smote "both man and beast" with hail, then covered the land with -locusts, and followed this with a thick darkness throughout the land--a -darkness which _might_ have been felt. Whether it was felt is a matter -on which I am unable to pass an opinion. After this, the Egyptians being -terrified by the destruction of their first-born children, the Jews, at -the instance of Moses, borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, -jewels of gold, and raiment; and they spoiled the Egyptians. The fact -is, that the Egyptians were in the same position as the payers of church -rates, tithes, vicars' rates, and Easter dues: they lent to the Lord's -people, who are good borrowers, but slow when repayment is required. -They prefer promising you a crown of glory to paying you at once five -shillings in silver. Moses led the Jews through the Red Sea, which -proved a ready means of escape, as may be easily read in Exodus, which -says that the Lord "made the sea dry land" for the Israelites, and -afterwards not only overwhelmed in it the Egyptians who sought to follow -them, but, as Josephus tells us, the current of the sea actually carried -to the camp of the Hebrews the arms of the Egyptians, so that the -wandering Jews might not be destitute of weapons. After this the -Israelites were led by Moses into Shur, where they were without water -for three days, and the water they afterwards found was too bitter to -drink until a tree had been cast into the well. The Israelites were then -fed with manna, which, when gathered on Friday, kept for the Sabbath, -but rotted if kept from one week day to another. The people grew tired -of eating manna, and complained, and God sent fire amongst them and -burned them up in the uttermost parts of the camp; and after this the -people wept and said, "Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the -fish we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers and the melons and the -leeks and the onions and the garlic; but now there is nothing at all -beside this manna before our eyes." This angered the Lord, and he gave -them a feast of quails, and while the flesh was yet between their teeth, -ere it was chewed, the anger of the Lord was kindled, and he smote the -Jewish people with a very great plague (Numbers, ix). The people again -in Rephidim were without water, and Moses therefore smote the Rock of -Horeb with his rod, and water came out of the rock. At Rephidim the -Amalekites and the Jews fought together, and while they fought Moses, -like a prudent general, went to the top of a hill, accompanied by Aaron -and Hur, and it came to pass that when Moses held up his hands Israel -prevailed, and when he let down his hands Amalek prevailed. But Moses' -hands were heavy, and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat -thereon, and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side -and the other on the other side, and his hands were steady until the -going down of the sun, and Joshua discomfited Amalek, and his people -with the edge of the sword. How the true believer ought to rejoice that -the stone was so convenient, as otherwise the Jews might have been -slaughtered, and there might have been no royal line of David, no Jesus, -no Christianity. That stone should be more valued than the precious -black stone of the Moslem; it is the corner-stone of the system, the -stone which supported the Mosaic rule. God is everywhere, but Moses went -up unto him, and the Lord called to him out of a mountain and came to -him in a thick cloud, and descended on Mount Sinai in a fire, in -consequence of which the mountain smoked, and the Lord came down upon -the top of the mountain and called Moses up to him; and then the Lord -gave Moses the Ten Commandments, and also those precepts which follow, -in which Jews are permitted to buy their fellow-countrymen for six -years, and in which it is provided that, if the slave-master shall give -his six-year slave a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters, that the -wife and the children shall be the property of her master. In these -precepts it is also permitted that a man may sell his own daughter for -the most base purposes. Also that a master may beat his slave, so that -if he do not die until a few days after the ill-treatment, the master -shall escape justice because the slave is his money. Also that Jews may -buy strangers and keep them as slaves for ever. While Moses was up in -the mount the people clamoured for Aaron to make them gods. Moses had -stopped away so long that the people gave him up for lost. Aaron, whose -duty it was to have pacified and restrained them, and to have kept them -in the right faith, did nothing of the kind. He induced them to bring -all their gold, and then made it into a calf, before which he built an -altar, and then proclaimed a feast. Manners and customs change. In those -days the Jews did see the God that Aaron took their gold for, but now -the priests take the people's gold, and the poor contributors do not -even see a calf for their pains, unless indeed they are near a mirror at -the time when they are making their voluntary contributions. And the -Lord told Moses what happened, and said, "I have seen this people, and -behold it is a stiffnecked people. Now, therefore, let me alone that my -wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them." Moses -would not comply with God's request, but remonstrated, and expostulated, -and begged him not to afford the Egyptians an opportunity of speaking -against him. Moses succeeded in changing the unchangeable, and the Lord -repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people. - -Although Moses would not let God's "wrath wax hot" his own "anger waxed -hot," and he broke, in his rage, the two tables of stone which God had -given him, and on which the Lord had graven and written with his own -finger. We have now no means of knowing in what language God wrote, or -whether Moses afterwards took any pains to rivet together the broken -pieces. It is almost to be wondered at that the Christian Evidence -Societies have not sent missionaries to search for these pieces of the -tables, which may even yet remain beneath the mount. Moses took the calf -which they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder, and -strewed it upon water and made the children of Israel drink of it. After -this Moses armed the priests and killed 3,000 Jews, "and the Lord -plagued the people because they had made the calf which Aaron had made." -(Exodus xxxii, 35) Moses afterwards pitched the tabernacle without the -camp; and the cloudy pillar in which the Lord went, descended and stood -at the door of the tabernacle; and the Lord talked to Moses "face to -face, as a man would to his friend." (Exodus xxxiii, 11) And the Lord -then told Moses, "Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see -me and live." (Exodus xxxiii, 20) Before this Moses and Aaron and Nadab -and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, "saw the God of Israel, -and there was under his feet, as it were, a paved work of sapphire -stone,.. and upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his -hand; also they saw God, and did eat and drink." (Exodus xxix, 9) - -Aaron, the brother of Moses, died under very strange circumstances. The -Lord said unto Moses, "Strip Aaron of his garments and put them upon -Eleazar, his son, and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people and shall -die there." And Moses did as the Lord commanded, and Aaron died there on -the top of the mount, where Moses had taken him. There does not appear -to have been any coroner's inquest in the time of Aaron, and the -suspicious circumstances of the death of the brother of Moses have been -passed over by the faithful. - -When Moses was leading the Israelites near Moab, Balak the King of the -Moabites sent to Balaam in order to get Balaam to curse the Jews. When -Balak's messengers were with Balaam, God came to Balaam also, and asked -what men they were. Of course God knew, but he inquired for his own wise -purposes, and Balaam told him truthfully. God ordered Balaam not to -curse the Jews, and therefore the latter refused, and sent the Moabitish -messengers away. Then Balak sent again high and mighty princes under -whose influence Balaam went mounted on an ass, and God's anger was -kindled against Balaam, and he sent an angel to stop him by the way; but -the angel did not understand his business well, and the ass first ran -into a field, and then close against the wall, and it was not until the -angel removed to a narrower place that he succeeded in stopping the -donkey; and when the ass saw the angel she fell down. Balaam did not see -the angel at first; and, indeed, we may take it as a fact of history -that asses have always been the most ready to perceive angels. - -Moses may have been a great author, but we have little means of -ascertaining what he wrote in the present day. Divines talk of Genesis -to Deuteronomy as the five books of Moses, but Eusebius, in the fourth -century, attributed them to Ezra, and Saint Chrysostom says that the -name of Moses has been affixed to the books without authority, by -persons living long after him. It is quite certain that if Moses lived -3,300 years ago, he did not write in square letter Hebrew, and this -because the character has not existed so long. It is indeed doubtful if -it can be carried back 2,000 years. The ancient Hebrew character, though -probably older than this, yet is comparatively modern amongst the -ancient languages of the earth. - -It is urged by orthodox chronologists that Moses was born about 1450 -B.C., and that the Exodus took place about 1491 B.C. Unfortunately -"there are no recorded dates in the Jewish Scriptures that are -trustworthy." Moses, or the Hebrews, not being mentioned upon Egyptian -monuments from the twelfth to the seventeenth century B.C. inclusive, -and never being alluded to by any extant writer who lived prior to the -Septuagint translation at Alexandria (commencing in the third century -B.C.), there are no extraneous aids, from sources alien to the Jewish -Books, through which any information, worthy of historical acceptance, -can be gathered elsewhere about him or them.[33] - - [33] G.R. Gliddon's Types of Mankind: Mankind's Chronology, p 711 - -Moses died in the land of Moab when he was 120 years of age. The Lord -buried Moses in a valley of Moab, over against Bethpeor, but no man -knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. Josephus says that "a cloud came -over him on the sudden and he disappeared in a certain valley." The -devil disputed about the body of Moses, contending with the Archangel -Michael (Jude, 9); but whether the devil or the angel had the best of -the discussion, the Bible does not tell us. - -De Beauvoir Priaulx,[34] looking at Moses as a counsellor, leader, and -legislator, says:--"Invested with this high authority, he announced to -the Jews their future religion, and announced it to them as a state -religion, and as framed for a particular state, and that state only. He -gave this religion, moreover, a creed so narrow and negative--he limited -it to objects so purely temporal, he crowded it with observances so -entirely ceremonial or national--that we find it difficult to determine -whether Moses merely established this religion in order that by a -community of worship he might induce in the tribe-divided Israelites -that community of sentiment which would constitute them a nation; or, -whether he only roused them to a sense of their national dignity, in the -hope that they might then more faithfully perform the duties of priests -and servants of Jehovah. In other words, we hesitate to decide whether -in the mind of Moses the state was subservient to the purposes of -religion, or religion to the purposes of state." - - [34] Questiones Mosaicae, p. 438. - -The same writer observes[35] that, according to the Jewish writings, -Moses "is the friend and favourite of the Deity. He is one whose prayers -and wishes, the Deity hastens to fulfil, one to whom the Deity makes -known his designs. The relations between God and the prophet are most -intimate. God does not disdain to answer the questions of Moses, to -remove his doubts, and even occasionally to receive his suggestions, and -to act upon them even in opposition to his own pre-determined decrees." - - [35] p. 418. - - - -NEW LIFE OF DAVID - - -IN compiling a biographical account of any ancient personage, -impediments often arise from the uncertainty, party bias, and prejudiced -coloring of the various traditions out of which, the biography is -collected. Here no such obstacle is met with, no such bias can be -imagined, for, in giving the life of David, we extract it from an -all-wise God's perfect and infallible revelation to man, and thus are -enabled to present it to our readers free from any doubt, uncertainty, -or difficulty. There is perhaps the fear that the manner of this brief -sketch may be adjudged to be within the operation of such common law as -wisely protects the career of the saints from mere sinful common-sense -criticism; but as the matter is derived from the authorised version for -which England is indebted to James, of royal and pious memory, this new -life of David may be safely left to the impartial judgment of Mr. -Justice North, aided by the charitable and pious counsel of Sir Hardinge -Giffard. The latter, who has had more than one criminal client for whom -he has most ably pleaded, might be relied on to make out a strong, if -not a good, case for punishing any one who is unfair to the man after -God's own heart. Mr. Justice Stephen has furnished me with some slight -guide in his notice of Voltaire's play called "David:"-- - -"It constitutes, perhaps, the bitterest attack on David's character ever -devised by the wit of man, but the effect is produced almost exclusively -by the juxtaposition, with hardly any alteration, of a number of texts -from different parts of David's history. It would be a practical -impossibility to charge a jury in such a case, so as to embody Lord -Coleridge's view of the law. The judge would have to say: 'It is lawful -to say that David was a murderer, an adulterer, a treacherous tyrant who -passed his last moments in giving directions for assassinations; but you -must observe the decencies of controversy. You must not arrange your -facts in such a way as to mix ridicule with indignation, or to convey -too striking a contrast between the solemn character of the documents -from which the extracts are made, and the nature of the extracts -themselves, and of the facts to which they relate.'" - -It is in the spirit of this paragraph that I have penned the present -life. - -The father of David was Jesse, an Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, who had -either eight sons, (1 Samuel xvi, 10-11, and xvii, 12), or only seven (1 -Chronicles, ii, 13-15), and David was either the eighth son or the -seventh. Some may think this a difficulty, but such persons will only be -those who rely on their own intellectual faculties, or who have been -misled by arithmetic. If you are in any doubt, consult some qualified -divine, and he will explain to you that there is really no difference -between eight and seven when rightly understood with prayer and faith, -by the help of the spirit. Arithmetic is an utterly infidel acquirement, -and one which all true believers should eschew. The proposition that -three times one are one is a fundamental article of the Christian faith. -When young, David tended his father's sheep, and apparently while so -doing he gained a character for being cunning in playing a mighty -valiant man, a man of war and prudent in matters. He obtained his -reputation as a soldier early and wonderfully, for he was "but a youth;" -and God's most holy word asserts that when going to fight with Goliath, -he tried to walk in armor and could not, because he was not accustomed -to it (1 Samuel xvii, 39 _c.f._ Douay version). Samuel shortly prior to -this anointed David, who, while yet a lad, had been selected by the Lord -to be King of the Jews in place and stead of Saul, who had wickedly -disobeyed the commands of the Lord, who in his infinite love and mercy -had said (1 Sam. xv, 3): "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy -all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, -infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass." Saul, however, -behaved unrighteously, for he "spared Agag, and the best of the sheep, -and of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was -good, and would not utterly destroy them." This not unnaturally -irritated and annoyed the Lord. "Then came the word of the Lord unto -Samuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be King: for -he is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my -commandments," and the Lord bid Samuel fill a "horn with oil," and sent -Samuel, who anointed David the son of Jesse in the midst of his -brethren, and the spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day -forward. If a man takes to spirits his life will probably be one of -vice, misery, and misfortune; and if spirits take to him, the result in -the end is nearly the same. Every evil deed which the Bible records as -having been done by David was after the spirit of the Lord had so come -upon him. Saul being King of Israel, an evil spirit from the Lord -troubled him. The devil has, it is said, no love for music, and Saul was -recommended to have David to play on a harp, in order that harmony might -drive this evil spirit back to the Lord who sent it. The Jew's harp was -played successfully, and Saul was often relieved from the evil spirit by -David's ministrations. There is nothing miraculous in this; at the -People's Concerts many a working man has been relieved from the "blue -devils" by a stirring chorus, a merry song, or patriotic anthem; and on -the contrary many evil spirits have been aroused by the most unmusical -performances of the followers of General Booth. David was appointed -armor-bearer to the King; but curiously enough, this office does not -appear to have interfered with his duties as a shepherd; indeed, the -care of his father's sheep took precedence over the care of the king's -armor, and in the time of war he "went and returned to feed his father's -sheep." Perhaps his "prudence in matters" induced him thus to take care -of himself. - -A Philistine, one Goliath of Gath (whose height was six cubits and a -span, or about nine feet six inches, at a low computation) had defied -the armies of Israel. This Goliath was (to use the vocabulary of a -reverend sporting correspondent to a certain religious newspaper) a -veritable champion of the heavy weights. He carried in all about two -cwt. of offensive and defensive armor upon his person, and his challenge -had great weight. None dared accept it amongst the soldiers of Saul -until the arrival of David, who brought some food for his brethren. -David volunteered to fight the giant, but Elias, David's brother, having -mocked the presumption of the offer, and Saul objecting that the -venturesome lad was not competent to take part in a conflict so -dangerous, David related how he pursued a lion and a bear, how he caught -him by his beard and slew him. Which animal it was that David thus -bearded the text does not say. The Douay says it was "a lion or a bear." -To those who have chased the king of the forests or studied the habits -of bears, the whole story looks, on an attentive reading, "very like a -whale." David was permitted to fight the giant; his equipment was -simple, a sling and stones, and with these, from a distance, he slew the -giant. Some suggest that the weapon Goliath fell under was the long bow. -This suggestion is rendered probable by the book itself. One verse says -that David slew the Philistine with a stone, another verse says that he -slew him with the giant's own sword, while in 2 Samuel xxi, 19, we are -told that Goliath the Gittite was slain by Elhanan. Our translators, who -have great regard for our faith and more for their pulpits, have kindly -inserted the words "the brother of" before Goliath. This emendation -saves the true believer from the difficulty of understanding how Goliath -of Gath could have been killed by different men at different times. -David was previously well known to Saul, and was much loved and favored -by that monarch. He was also seen by the king before he went forth to do -battle with the gigantic Philistine. Yet (as if to verify the proverb -that kings have short memories for their friends) Saul had forgotten his -own armor-bearer and muchloved harpist, and was obliged to ask Abner who -David was. Abner, captain of the king's host, familiar with the person -of the armor-bearer to the king, of course knew David well; he therefore -answered: "As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell." David, having -made known his parentage, was appointed to high command by Saul; but the -Jewish women over-praised David, and thus displeased the king. One day -the evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul and he prophesied. Men -often talk great nonsense under the influence of spirits, which they -sometimes regret when sober. It is, however, an interesting fact in -ancient spiritualism to know that Saul prophesied with a devil in him. -Under the joint influence of the devil and prophecy, Saul tried to kill -David with a javelin, and this was repeated, even after David had -married the king's daughter (whose wedding he had secured by the -slaughter of two hundred men). Saul then asked his son and servants to -kill David; but Jonathan, Saul's son, loved David, "And Saul hearkened -unto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall -not be slain." It is interesting as showing the utility of oaths that -after having thus sworn Saul was more determined than ever to kill -David. To save his own life David fled to Naioth, and Saul sent there -messengers to arrest David; but three sets of the king's messengers -having in turn all become prophets, Saul went himself, and the spirit of -the Lord came upon him also, and he stripped off his clothes and -prophesied as hard as the rest, "laying down naked all that day and all -that night." - -David lived in exile for some time in godly company, having collected -round him every one that was in distress, and every one that was in -debt, and every one that was discontented. Saul made several fruitless -attempts to effect his capture, with no better result than that he twice -placed himself in the power of David, who twice showed the mercy to a -cruel king which he never conceded to an unoffending people. David -having obtruded himself upon Achish, King of Gath, doubtful of his -safety, feigned madness to cover his retreat. He then lived a precarious -life, sometimes levying a species of black mail upon defenceless -farmers. Having applied to one farmer to make him some compensation for -permitting the farm to go unrobbed, and his demand not having been -complied with, David, who is a man after the heart of God of mercy, -immediately determined to murder the farmer and all his household for -their wicked reluctance in submitting to his extortions. The wife of -farmer Nabal compromised the matter. David "_accepted her person_" and -ten days after Nabal was found dead in his bed. David afterwards went -with 600 men and lived under the protection of Achish, King of Gath, and -while thus residing (being the anointed one of God who says, "Thou shalt -not steal") he robbed the inhabitants of the surrounding places. Being -also obedient to the statute, "Thou shalt do no murder," he slaughtered, -and left neither man nor woman alive to report his robberies to King -Achish; and as he "always walked in the ways" of a God to whom "lying -lips are an abomination," he made false reports to Achish in relation to -his actions. Of course this was all for the glory of God, whose ways are -not as our ways. Soon the Philistines were engaged in another of the -constantly recurring conflicts with the Israelites. Who offered them the -help of himself and hand? Who offered to make war on his own countrymen? -David, the man after God's own heart, who obeyed God's statutes and who -walked in his ways, to do only that which was right in the sight of God. -The Philistines rejected the traitor's aid, and prevented the -consummation of this baseness. While David was making this unpatriotic -proffer of his services to the Philistines, his own city of Ziglag was -captured by the Amalekites, who were doubtless endeavoring to avenge -some of the most unjustifiable robberies and murders perpetrated by -David and his followers in their country. David's own friends evidently -thought that this misfortune was a retribution for David's crimes, for -they spoke of stoning him. The Amalekites had captured and carried off -everything, but they do not seem to have maltreated or killed any of -their enemies. David was less merciful. He pursued them, recaptured the -spoil, and spared not a man of them, save 400 who escaped on camels. In -consequence of the death of Saul, David was elevated to the throne of -Judah, while Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, was made king of Israel. But -Ishbosheth having been assassinated, David slew the assassins, when -they, hoping for reward, brought him the news, and he reigned ultimately -over Israel also. - -As religious readers are doubtless aware, the Lord God of Israel, after -the time of Moses, usually dwelt on the top of an ark or box, between -two figures of gold; and on one occasion David made a journey with his -followers to Baal, to bring thence the ark of God. They placed it on a -new cart drawn by oxen. On the journey the oxen stumbled, and -consequently shook the cart. One of the drivers, whose name was Uzzah, -possibly fearing that God might be tumbled to the ground, took hold of -the ark, apparently in order to steady it, and prevent it from -overturning. God, who is a God of love, was much displeased that any one -should presume to do any such act of kindness, and killed Uzzah on the -spot as a punishment for his sin. This shows that if a man sees the -Church of God tumbling down, he should never try to prop it up; if it be -not strong enough to save itself, the sooner it falls the better for -humankind--that is, if they keep away from it while it is falling. David -was much displeased that the Lord had killed Uzzah; in fact, David seems -to have wished for a monopoly of slaughter, and always manifested -displeasure when any killing was done unauthorised by himself. Being -displeased, David would not take the ark to Jerusalem, but left it in -the house of Obed Edom; then, as the Lord proved more kind to Obed Edom -than he had done to Uzzah, David determined to bring the ark away, and -did so, dancing before the ark in a state of semi-nudity, for which he -was reproached by Michal. Lord Campbell's Act is intended to hinder the -publication of indecencies, but the pages of the Book which the law -affirms to be God's most holy word do not come within the scope of the -Act, and lovers of obscene language may therefore have legal -gratification so long as the Bible shall exist. The God of Israel, who -had been leading a wandering life for many years, and who had "walked in -a tent and in a tabernacle," and "from tent to tent," and "from one -tabernacle to another," and "who had not dwelt in any house" since the -time that he brought the Israelites out of Egypt, was offered "an house -for him to dwell in," but he declined to accept it during the lifetime -of David, although he promised to permit the son of David to erect him -such an abode. David being now a powerful monarch, and having many wives -and concubines, saw one day the beautiful wife of one of his soldiers. -To see with this licentious monarch was to crave for the gratification -of his lust. The husband Uriah was fighting for the king, yet David was -base enough to steal his wife's virtue during Uriah's absence in the -field of battle. "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was one of the -commandments, yet we are told by God of this David, that he was one "who -kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart to do only -that which was right in mine eyes" (1 Kings, xiv, 8). David having -seduced the wife, sent for her husband, wishing to make him condone his -wife's dishonor. In modern England under a Stuart or a Brunswick, Uriah -might have become a Marquis or a Baron. Some hold that virtue in rags is -less worth than vice when coro-neted. Uriah would not be thus tricked, -and David, the pious David, coolly planned, and without mercy caused to -be executed, the treacherous murder of Uriah. God is all-just; and David -having committed adultery and murder, God punished and killed an -innocent child, which had no part or share in David's crime, and never -chose that it should be born from the womb of Bathsheba. After this king -David was even more cruel and merciless than before. Previously he had -systematically slaughtered the inhabitants of Moab, now he sawed people -with saws, cut them with harrows and axes, and made them pass through -brick-kilns. Yet of this man, God said he "did that which was right in -mine eyes." So bad a king, so treacherous a man, a lover so inconstant, -a husband so adulterous, was of course a bad father, having bad -children. We are little surprised, therefore, to read that his son Amnon -robbed of her virtue his own sister, David's daughter Tamar, and that -Am-non was afterwards slain by his own brother, David's son Absalom, and -we are scarcely astonished that Absalom himself, on the house-top, in -the sight of all Israel, should complete his father's shame by an act -worthy a child of God's select people. Yet these are God's chosen race, -and this is the family of the man "who walked in God's ways all the days -of his life." - -God, who is all-wise and all-just, and who is not a man that he should -repent, repented that he had made Saul king because Saul spared one man. -In the reign of David the same good God sent a famine for three years on -the descendants of Abraham, and upon being asked his reason for thus -starving his chosen ones, the reply of the Deity was that he sent the -famine on the subjects of David because Saul slew the Gibeonites. -Satisfactory reason!--because Oliver Cromwell slew the Royalists, God -will punish the subjects of Charles the Second. One reason is, to -profane eyes, equivalent to the other, but a bishop or even a rural dean -would soon show how remarkably God's justice was manifested. David was -not behindhand in justice. He had sworn to Saul that he would not cut -off his seed--i.e., that he would not destroy Saul's family. He -therefore took two of Saul's sons, and five of Saul's grandsons, and -gave them up to the Gibeonites, who hung them. Strangely wonderful are -the ways of the Lord! Saul slew the Gibeonites, therefore years -afterwards God starves Judah. The Gibeonites hang men who have nothing -to do with the crime of Saul, except that they are his descendants, and -then we are told "the Lord was intreated for the land." The anger of the -Lord being kindled against Israel, he, wanting some excuse for punishing -the descendants of Jacob, moved David to number his people. The -Chronicles say that the tempter was Satan, and pious people may thus -learn what there is of distinction between God and Devil. Philosophers -would urge that both personifications are founded in the ignorance of -the masses, and the continuance of the myth will cease with the -credulousness of the people. David caused a census to be taken of the -tribes of Israel and Judah. There is a trival disagreement of about -270,000 soldiers between Samuel and Chronicles, but readers must not -allow so slight an inaccuracy as this to stand between them and heaven. -What are 270,000 men when looked at prayerfully? That any doubt should -arise is to a devout mind at the same time profane and preposterous. -Statisticians suggest that 1,570,000 soldiers form a larger army than -the Jews are likely to have possessed; but if God is omnipotent, there -is no reason to limit his power of miraculously increasing or decreasing -the armament of the Jewish nation. David, it seems, did wrong in -numbering his people, but we are never told that he did wrong in robbing -or murdering their neighbors, or in pillaging peaceful agriculturists. -David said: "I have sinned," and for this an all-merciful God brought a -pestilence on the people, and murdered 70,000 Israelites, for an offence -which their ruler had committed. The angel who was engaged in this -terrible slaughter stood somewhere between heaven and earth, and -stretched forth his hand with a drawn sword to destroy Jerusalem itself; -but even the bloodthirsty Deity of the Bible "repented him of the evil," -and said to the angel: "It is enough." Many volumes might be written to -answer the enquiries--where did the angel stand, and on what? Of what -metal was the sword, and where was it made? As it was a drawn one, where -was the scabbard? and did the angel wear a sword-belt? Examined in a -pious frame of mind, much holy instruction may be derived from the -attempt to solve these solemn problems. - -David now grows old and weak, and at last his death-hour comes. Oh! for -the dying words of the Psalmist! What pious instruction shall we derive -from the death-bed scene of the man after God's own heart! Listen to the -last words of Judah's expiring monarch. You who have been content with -the pious frauds and forgeries perpetrated with reference to the -death-beds and dying words of the great, the generous, the witty -Voltaire; the manly, the self-denying, the incorruptible Thomas Paine; -the humane, simple, child-like man, yet mighty poet, Shelley--you who -have turned away from these with unwarranted horror--come with me to the -death-couch of the special favorite of God. Bathsheba's child stands by -his side. Does any thought of the murdered Uriah rack old David's brain, -or has a tardy repentance effaced the bloody stain from the pages of his -memory? What does the dying David say? Does he talk of cherubs, angels -and heavenly choirs? Nay, none of these things passes his lips. Does he -make a confession of his crime-stained life, and beg his son to be a -better king, a truer man, a more honest citizen, a wiser father? Nay, -not so--no word of sorrow, no sign of regret, no expression of remorse -or repentance escapes his lips. What does the dying David say? This foul -monster whom God has made king; this redhanded robber, whose life has -been guarded by "our Father which art in Heaven;" this perjured king, -whose lying lips have found favor in the sight of God, and who, when he -dies, is safe for Heaven. It is written: "There shall be more joy in -heaven before God over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and -nine righteous men." Does David repent? Nay, like the ravenous wolf, -which, tasting blood, is made more eager for the prey, he too yearns for -blood; and with his dying breath begs his son to bring the grey hairs of -two old men down to the grave with blood. And this is God's anointed -king, the chief one of God's chosen people. - -The learned and pious Puffendorf explains that David having only sworn -not himself to kill Shimei (1 Kings, ii, 8) there was no perjury on the -part of David in persuading Solomon to contrive the killing from which -David had sworn to personally abstain. - -David is alleged to have written several Psalms, but of this there is -little evidence beyond pious assertion. In one of these the psalmist -addresses God in pugilistic phraseology, praising Deity that he had -smitten all his enemies on the cheek-bone, and broken the teeth of the -ungodly. In these days when "muscular Christianity" is not without -advocates, the metaphor which presents God as a sort of magnificent -Benicia Boy may find many admirers. In the eighteenth Psalm, David -describes God as with "smoke coming out of his nostrils and fire out of -his mouth," by which "coals were kindled." He represents God as coming -down from heaven, and says: "he rode upon a cherub." The learned -Parkhurst gives a likeness of a one-legged, four-winged, four-faced -animal, part lion, part bull, part eagle, part man, and if a cloven foot -be any criterion, part devil also. This description, if correct, will -give some idea to the faithful of the wonderful character of the -equestrian feats of Deity. In addition to a cherub, God has other means -of conveyance at his disposal, if David be not in error when he says -that the chariots of the Lord are 20,000. - -In Psalm xxvi the writer adds hypocrisy in addition to his other vices. -He has the impudence to tell God that he has been a man of integrity and -truth, and that he has avoided evil-doers, although, if we are to -believe Psalm xxxviii, the hypocrite must have already been subject to a -loathsome disease--a penalty consequent on his licentiousness and -criminality. In another Psalm, David the liar tells God that "he that -telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight." To understand David's pious -nature we must study his prayer to God against an enemy (Psalm cix, -6-14): "Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right -hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer -become sin. Let his days be few: and let another take his office. Let -his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be -continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of -their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and -let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy -unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let -his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name -be blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the -Lord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out." - -A full consideration of the life of David must give great help to the -orthodox in promoting and sustaining faith. While spoken of by Deity as -obeying all the statutes and keeping all the commandments, we are -astonished to find that murder, theft, lying, adultery, licentiousness, -and treachery are amongst the crimes which may be laid to his charge. -David was a liar, God is a God of truth; David was merciless, God is -merciful, and of long suffering; David was a thief, God says: "Thou -shalt not steal;" David was a murderer, God says: "Thou shalt do no -murder; "David took the wife of Uriah, and "accepted" the wife of Nabal, -God says: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife." Yet, -notwithstanding all these things, David was the man after God's own -heart! - -Had this Jewish monarch any redeeming traits in his character? Was he a -good citizen? If so, the Bible has carefully concealed every action -which would entitle him to such an appellation. Was he a kind and -constant husband? To whom? To which of his many wives and mistresses? -Was he grateful to those who aided him in his hour of need? Rather, like -the serpent which, half-frozen by the wayside, is warmed into new life -in the traveller's breast, and then treacherously stings his succorer -with his poisoned fangs, so David robbed and murdered the friends and -allies of the King of Gath, who afforded him protection against the -pursuit of Saul. Does his patriotism outshine his many vices? Does his -love of country efface his many misdoings? Not even this. David was a -heartless traitor who volunteered to serve against his own countrymen, -and would have done so had not the Philistines rejected his treacherous -help. Was he a good king? So say the priesthood now; but where is the -evidence of his virtue? His crimes brought plague and pestilence on his -subjects, and his reign is a continued succession of wars, revolts, and -assassinations, plottings and counterplots. - -The life of David is a dark blot on the page of human history, fit in -companionship for the biographies of Constantine the Great and Henry -VIII; but it is through David that the genealogies of Jesus are traced, -and without David there would be no Christian faith. - - - - -A NEW LIFE OF JONAH - - -JONAH was the son of Amittai of Gath-hepher, which place divines -identify with Gittah-hepher of the Children of Zebulun. Dr. Inman says -that Gath-hepher means "the village of the Cow's tail," but he also says -it means "the Heifer's trough." Gesenius translates it "the wine-press -of the well." Bible Dictionaries say that Gath-hepher is the same as -el-Meshhad, and affirm that the tomb of Jonah was "long shown on a rocky -hill near the town." The blood of Saint Januarius is shown in Naples to -this day. Nothing is known of the sex or life of Amittai, except that -Jonah was his or her son, and that Gath-hepher was her or his place of -residence; but to a true believer these two facts, even though standing -utterly alone, will be pregnant with instruction. To the sceptic and -railer, Amittai is as an unknown quantity in an algebraic problem. Jonah -was not a very common proper name, [--Hebrew--] means a dove, and some -derive it from the Arabic root--to be weak, gentle:--so that one meaning -of Jonah, according to Gesenius, would be feeble, gentle bird. The -Prophet Jonah was by no means a feeble, gentle bird; he was rather a -bird of pray. Certainly it was his intention to become a bird of -passage. The date of the birth of Jonah is not given; the margin of my -Bible dates the book of Jonah B.C. cir. 862, and my Bible Dictionary -fixes the date of the matter to which the book relates at "about B.C. -830." If from any reason either of these dates should be disagreeable to -the reader, he can choose any other date without fear of anachronism. -Jonah was a prophet; so is Dr. Cumming, so is Brigham Young; there is no -evidence that Jonah followed any other profession. Jonah's profit -probably hardly equalled that realised by the Archbishop of Canterbury, -but he had money enough to pay his fare "from the presence of the Lord" -to Tarshish. The exact distance of this voyage may be easily calculated -by remembering that the Lord is omnipresent, and then measuring from his -boundary to Tarshish. The fare may be worked out by the differential -calculus after evening prayer. - -The word of the Lord came to Jonah; when or how the word came the text -does not record, and to any devout mind it is enough to know that it -came. The first time in the world's history that the word of the Lord -ever came to anybody, may be taken to be when Adam and Eve "heard the -voice of the Lord" "walking in the Garden" of Eden "in the cool of the -day." Between the time of Adam and Jonah a long period had elapsed; but -human nature, having had many prophets, was very wicked. The Lord wanted -Jonah to go with a message to Nineveh. Nineveh was apparently a city of -three days' journey in size. Allowing twenty miles for each day, this -would make the city about 60 miles across, or about 180 miles in -circumference. Some faint idea may be formed of this vast city, by -adding together London, Paris, and New York, and then throwing in -Liverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Marseilles, Naples, and -Spurgeon's Tabernacle. Jonah knowing that the Lord did not always carry -out his threats or perform his promises, did not wish to go to Nineveh, -and "rose up to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord." The -Tarshish for which Jonah intended his flight was either in Spain or -India or elsewhere. I am inclined, after deep reflection and examination -of the best authorities, to give the preference to the third-named -locality. When Cain went "out of the presence of the Lord," he went into -the Land of Nod, but whether Tarshish is in that or some other country -there is no evidence to determine. To get to Tarshish, Jonah--instead of -going to the port of Tyre, which was the nearest to his reputed -dwelling, and by far the most commodious--went to the more distant and -less convenient port of Joppa, where he found a ship going to Tarshish; -"so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them -into Tarshish, from the presence of the Lord." Jonah was, however, very -shortsighted. Just as in the old Greek mythology, winds and waves are -made warriors for the gods, so the God of the Hebrews "sent out a great -wind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that -the ship was like to be broken." Luckily she was not an old leaky -vessel, overladen and heavily insured; one which the sanctimonious -owners desired to see at the bottom, and which the captain did not care -to save. Christianity and civilisation were yet to bring forth that -glorious resultant, a pious English shipowner, with a newly-painted, -but, under the paint, a worn and rusty iron vessel, long abandoned as -unfit, but now fresh-named, and so insured that Davy Jones's locker -becomes the most welcome haven of refuge. "The mariners were afraid... -and cast forth the wares" into the sea to lighten the ship. But where -was Jonah during this noise? Men trampling on deck, hoarse and harsh -words of command, and the fury of the storm troubled not our prophet. -Sea-sickness, which spares not the most pious, had no effect upon him. -"Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship, and he lay and was fast -asleep." The battering of the waves against the sides disturbed not his -devout slumbers; the creaking of the vessel's timbers spoiled not his -repose. Despite the pitching and rolling of the vessel Jonah "was fast -asleep." Had he been in the comfortable berth of a Cunarder, it would -not have been easy to sleep through such a storm. Had he been in the -hold of a smaller vessel on the Bay of Biscay, finding himself now with -his head lower than his heels, and now with his body playing hide and -seek amongst loose articles of cargo, it would have required great -absence of mind to prevent waking. Had he only been on an Irish steamer -carrying cattle on deck, between Bristol and Cork, with a portion of the -bulwarks washed away, and a squad of recruits "who cried every man to -his God," he would have found the calmness of undisturbed slumber -difficult. But Jonah was on board the Joppa and Tarshish boat, and he -"was fast asleep." As the crew understood the theory of storms, they of -course knew that when there is a tempest at sea it is sent by God, -because he is offended by some one on board the vessel. Modern -scientists scout this notion, and pretend to track storm waves across -the world, and to affix storm signals in order to warn mariners. They -actually profess to predict atmospheric changes, and to explain how such -changes take place. Church clergymen know how futile science is, and how -potent prayers are, for vessels at sea. The men on the Joppa vessel -said, "every one to his fellow, Come, and lets us cast lots, that we may -know for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the -lot fell upon Jonah." It is always a grave question in sacred -metaphysics as to whether God directed Jonah's lot, and, if yes, whether -the casting of lots is analogous to playing with loaded dice. The Bishop -of Lincoln, who understands how far cremation may render resurrection -awkward, is the only divine capable of thoroughly resolving this -problem. For ordinary Christians it is enough to know that the lot fell -upon Jonah. - -Before the crew commenced casting lots to find out Jonah, they had cast -lots of their wares overboard, so that when the lot fell on Jonah it was -much lighter than it would have been had the lot fallen upon him during -his sleep. Still, if not stunned by the lot which fell upon him, he -stood convicted as the cause of the tempest:--and the crew "Then said -they unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon -us; What is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy -country? and of what people art thou? And he said unto them, I am an -Hebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea -and the dry land. Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto -him, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the -presence of the Lord, because he had told them. Then said they unto him, -What shall we do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the -sea wrought, and was tempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up, and -cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you; for I -know that for my sake this great tempest is upon you. Nevertheless the -men rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not; for the sea -wrought, and was tempestuous against them. Wherefore they cried unto the -Lord, and said, We beseech thee, O Lord, we beseech thee, let us not -perish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for -thou, O Lord, hast done as it pleased thee. So they took up Jonah, and -cast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging." No pen -can improve this story; it is so simple, so natural, so child-like. -Every one has heard of casting oil on troubled waters. It stands to -reason that a fat prophet would produce the same effect. What a striking -illustration of the power of faith it will be when bishops leave their -own sees in order to be in readiness to calm an ocean storm. Or if not a -bishop, at least a curate; and even a lean curate; for with sea air, a -ravenous appetite, and a White Star Line cabin bill of fare of -breakfast, lunch, dinner, tea, and supper, fatness would soon be arrived -at. In the interests of science I should like to see an episcopal -prophet occasionally thrown overboard during a storm. The experiment -must in any case be advantageous to humanity; should the tempest be -stilled, then the ocean would be indeed the broad way, not leading to -destruction; should the storm not be conquered, there would even then be -promotion in the Church, and happiness to many at the mere cost of one -bishop. "Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah." -Jesus says the fish was a whale. A whale would have needed preparation, -and the statement has an air of vraisemblance. The fish did swallow -Jonah. "Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights." -Poor Jonah! and poor fish! Poor Jonah, for it can scarcely be pleasant, -even if you escape suffocation, to be in a fish's belly with too much to -drink, and no room to swallow, and your solids either raw or too much -done. Poor fish! for even after preparation it must be disagreeable to -have one's poor stomach turned into a sort of prayer meeting. Jonah was -taken in; but the fish found that taking in a parson was a feat neither -easy nor healthy. After Jonah had uttered guttural sounds from inside -the fish's belly for three days and three nights, the Lord spake unto -the fish, and the fish was sick of Jonah, "and it vomited out Jonah upon -the dry land." Some sceptics urged that a whale could not have swallowed -Jonah; but once, at Tod-morden, a Church of England clergyman, who had -been curate to the Reverend Charles Kingsley, got rid of this as an -objection by assuring us that he should have equally believed the story -had it stated that Jonah had swallowed the whale. And then the word of -the Lord came to Jonah once more, and this time Jonah obeyed. He was to -take God's message to the citizens of Nineveh. "And Jonah began to enter -into the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days, -and Nineveh shall be overthrown." Should Jonah come to London in the -present day with a similar message, he would meet scant courtesy from -our clergy. A foreigner, and using a strange tongue, he would probably -find himself in Colney Hatch or Hanwell. To come to England in the name -of Mahomet or Buddha, or Osiris or Jupiter, would have little effect. -But the Ninevites do not seem even to have raised the question that the -God of the Hebrews was not their God. They listened to Jonah, and "the -people of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on -sackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word -came unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid -his robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And -he caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the -decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, -herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but -let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: -yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence -that is in their hands." The consumption of sackcloth for covering every -man and beast must have been rather large, and the Nineveh sackcloth -manufacturers must have had enormous stocks on hand to supply the sudden -demand. The city article of the _Nineveh Times_, if such a paper -existed, would probably have described "sackcloth firm, with a tendency -to rise." Man and beast, all dressed in or covered with sackcloth! It -would be sometimes difficult to distinguish a Ninevite man from a -Ninevite beast, the dress being similar for all. This is a difficulty, -however, other nations have shared with the Ninevites. Men and women may -sometimes be seen in London dressed in broadcloth and satins, and, -though their clothing is distinguishable enough, their conduct is -sometimes so beastly that the naked beasts are the more respectable. - -Nineveh was frightened, and Nineveh moaned, and Nineveh determined to do -wrong no more. "And God saw their works, that they turned from their -evil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do -unto them; and he did it not." God, the unchangeable, changed his -purpose, and spared the city, which in his infinite wisdom he had -doomed. "But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry." It -was enough to [vex] a saint to be sent to prophesy the destruction of -the city in six weeks, and then nothing at all to happen. "And he prayed -unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, -when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish." -Jonah did not like to be a discredited prophet, and cried, "Therefore -now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for -me to die than to live. Then said the Lord, Doest thou well to be -angry?" Jonah, knowing the Lord, was still curious and uncertain as well -as angry. He was a prophet and a sceptic. "So Jonah went out of the -city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a -boot[h], and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would -become of the city. And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to -come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver -him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd. But God -prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the -gourd that it withered. And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, -that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head -of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is -better for me to die than to live. And God said to Jonah, Doest thou -well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even -unto death. Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the -which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a -night, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that -great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot -discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much -cattle?" The Lord seems to have overlooked that Jonah had more pity on -himself than the gourd, whose only value to him was as a shade from the -sun. Jonah, too, might have reminded the Lord that there were more than -120,000 persons similarly situated at the deluge and at the slaughter of -the Midianites, and that the "much cattle" had never theretofore been -reckoned in the divine decrees of mercy. - -Here ends the new life of Jonah. Of the prophet's childhood we know -nothing; of his middle age no more than we have here related; of his old -age and death we have nothing to say. It is enough for good Christians -to know that "Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's -belly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the -heart of the earth." According to Jesus the story of Jonah is as true as -Gospel. - - - - -WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST? - - -MANY persons will consider the question one to which the Gospels give a -sufficient answer, and that no further inquiry is necessary. But while -the general Christian body affirm that Jesus was God incarnate on earth, -the Unitarian Christians, less in numerical strength, but numbering a -large proportion of the more intelligent and humane, absolutely deny his -divinity; the Jews, of whom he is alleged to have been one, do not -believe in him at all; and the enormous majority of the inhabitants of -the earth have never accepted the Gospels. Even in the earliest ages of -the Christian Church heretics were found, amongst Christians themselves, -who denied that Jesus had ever existed in the flesh. Under these -circumstances the most pious should concede that it is well to prosecute -the inquiry to the uttermost, that their faith may rest on sure -foundations. The history of Jesus Christ is contained in four books or -gospels; outside these it cannot be pretended that there is any reliable -narrative of his life. We know not with any certainty, and have now no -means of knowing, when, where, or by whom these gospels were written. -The name at the head of each gospel affords no clue to the real writer. -Before A.D. 160, no author mentions any Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke, -or John, and there is no sufficient evidence to identify the Gospels we -have with even the writings to which Irenaeus refers towards the close -of the second century. The Church has provided us with an author for -each Gospel, and some early Fathers have argued that there ought to be -four Gospels, because there are four seasons, four principal points to -the compass, and four corners to the earth. Bolder speculators affirm -twelve apostles because there are twelve signs of the Zodiac. With -regard to the Gospel first in order, divines disagree as to the language -in which it was written. Some allege that the original was in Hebrew, -others deny that our Greek version has any of the characters of a -translation. - -We neither know the hour, nor day, nor month, nor year, of Jesus's -birth; divines generally agree that he was not born on Christmas Day, -and yet on that day the anniversary of his birth is observed. The Oxford -Chronology places the matter in no clearer light, and more than thirty -learned authorities give a period of over seven years' difference in -their reckoning. The place of his birth is also uncertain. The Jews, in -the presence of Jesus, reproached him that he ought to have been born at -Bethlehem, and he never replied, "I was born there." (John vii, 41, 42, -52.) - -Jesus was the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matthew i), from whom -his descent is traced through Isaac--born of Sarai (whom the writer of -the epistle to Galatians [iv, 24], says was a covenant and not a -woman)--and ultimately through Joseph, who was not only not his father, -but is not shown to have had any kind of relationship to him, and -through whom therefore the genealogy should not be traced. There are two -genealogies in the Gospels which contradict each other, and these in -part may be collated with the Old Testament genealogy, which differs -from both. The genealogy of Matthew is self-contradictory, counts -thirteen names as fourteen, and omits the names of three kings. Matthew -says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel (i, 13). Luke says Zorobabel's son -Was Rhesa (iii, 27). The Old Testament contradicts both, and gives -Meshullam and Hananiah and Shelomith, their sister (1 Chron. iii, 19), -as the names of Zorobabel's children. The reputed father of Jesus, -Joseph, had two fathers, one named Jacob, the other Heli. The divines -suggest that Heli was the father of Mary, by reading the word "Mary" in -Luke iii, 23, in lieu of "Joseph," and the word "daughter" in lieu of -"son," thus correcting the evident blunder made by inspiration. The -birth of Jesus was miraculously announced to Mary and to Joseph by -visits of an angel, but they so little regarded the miraculous -annunciation that they marvelled soon after at much less wonderful -things spoken by Simeon. Jesus was the son of God, or God manifest in -the flesh, and his birth was first discovered by some wise men or -astrologers, a class described in the Bible as an abomination in God's -sight. These men saw his star in the East, but it did not tell them -much, for they were apparently obliged to ask information from Herod the -King. Herod in turn inquired of the chief priests and scribes; and it is -evident Jeremiah was right if he said, "The prophets prophesy falsely, -and the priests bear rule by their means," for these chief priests -either misread the prophets, or misquoted the scripture which is claimed -to be a revelation from God, and invented a false prophecy (Matthew ii, -5, 6, c.f. (Micah v, 2), by omitting a few words from, and adding a few -words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star--after the wise -men knew where to go, and no longer required its aid--led and went -before them, until it came and stood over where the young child was. -This story will be better understood if the reader will walk out some -clear night, notice a star, and then try to fix the one house it will be -exactly over. The writer of the Third Gospel, silent on the star story, -speaks of an angel who tells some shepherds of the miraculous; but this -does not appear to have happened in the reign of Herod. After the wise -men had left Jesus, an angel warned Joseph to flee with Jesus and Mary -into Egypt; and Joseph did fly, and remained there with the young child -and his mother until the death of Herod; and this it is alleged was done -to fulfil a prophecy. The words (Hosea xi, 1) are not prophetic and have -no reference whatever to Jesus. The Jesus of the Third Gospel never went -into Egypt at all in his childhood. When Jesus began to be about thirty -years of age, he was baptised by John in the River Jordan. John, who -knew him, according to the First Gospel, forbade him directly he saw -him; but, according to the Fourth Gospel, he knew him not, and had, -therefore, no occasion to forbid him. God is an "invisible spirit," whom -no man hath seen (John i, 18), or can see (Exodus xxxiii, 20); but the -man John saw the spirit of God descending like a dove. God is -everywhere, but at that time was in heaven, from whence he said, "This -is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." Although John heard this -from God's own mouth, he did not always act as if he believed it, but -some time after sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were -really the Christ (Matthew xi, 2, 3). Immediately after the baptism, -Jesus was led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the -Devil. Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights, and in those days he -did eat nothing. Moses twice fasted that period. Such fasts are nearly -miraculous. The modern fasting men, and the Hindoo fasters, only show -that under very abnormal conditions, long abstinence from food is -possible. Absolutely miraculous events are events which never happened -in the past, do not take place in the present, and never will occur in -the future. Jesus, it is said, was God, and by his power as God fasted. -On the hypothesis of his divinity, it is difficult to understand how he -became hungry. When hungry the Devil tempted Jesus by offering him -stones, and asking him to make them bread. Stones offered to a hungry -man for bread-making hardly afford a probable temptation. Which -temptation came next is a matter of doubt. Matthew and Luke relate the -story in different order. According to one, the Devil next taketh Jesus -to the pinnacle of the temple and tempts him to throw himself to the -bottom, by quoting Scripture that angels should bear him in their arms. -Jesus either disbelieved this Scripture, or remembered that the Devil, -like other pillars of the Church, grossly misquoted to suit his purpose, -and the temptation failed. The Devil then took Jesus to an exceeding -high mountain, from whence he showeth him all the kingdoms of the world -and the glory thereof, in a moment of time. It is urged that this did -not include a view of the antipodes, but only referred to the kingdoms -then known; even then it must have been a long look from Judea to China. -The mountain must have been very high--much higher than the diameter of -the earth. Origen, a learned and pious holy father, suggests that no man -in his senses will believe this to have really happened. If Origen had -to defend his language before a modern judge of the type of Mr. Justice -North, the Christian father would have sore risk of Holloway Gaol. The -Devil offered Jesus--who it is declared was one with God, and therefore -omnipotent--all the kingdoms of the world, if he, Jesus the omnipotent -God, would fall down and worship his own creature the Devil. Some object -that if God is the creator and omnipotent ruler of the world, then the -Devil would have no control over the kingdoms of the world, and that the -offer could be no temptation, as it was made to Jesus, who was God -omnipotent and all-wise. Such objectors rely on natural reason. - -After the temptation Jesus worked many miracles, casting out devils and -otherwise doing marvels amongst the inhabitants of Judea, who seem as a -body to have been very unbelieving. If a second Jesus of Nazareth were -in this heretical age to boast that he possessed the power of casting -out devils, he would stand a fair chance of expiating his offence by a -three months' imprisonment with hard labor. It is true that the 72nd -Canon of the Church of England recognises that ministers can cast out -devils, but forbids them to do this unless licensed by the Bishop "under -pain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage." Now, if sick men have -a little wisdom, the physician is resorted to that he may cure the -disease. If men have much wisdom, they study physiology while they have -health, in order to prevent sickness. In the time of the early -Christians prayer and faith (James v, 14, 15) occupied the position -since usurped by medicine and experience. Men who had lost their senses -in the time of Christ were regarded as attacked not by disease but by -the Devil. In the days of Jesus one spirit would make a man blind, or -deaf, or dumb: occasionally a number of devils would get into a man and -drive him mad. On one occasion Jesus met either one man (Mark v, 2) or -two men (Matt. viii, 28), possessed with devils. The devils knew Jesus, -and addressed him by name. Jesus, not so familiar with the imp or imps, -inquired the name of the particular devil he was addressing. The answer, -given in Latin, would induce a belief, possibly corroborated by the -writings of the monks, that devils communicated in that tongue. Jesus -wanted to cast out the devils from the man; this they did not contest, -but they expressed a decided objection to being cast out of the country. -A compromise was agreed to, and at their own request the devils were -transferred to a herd of swine. The swine ran into the sea and were -drowned. There is no record of any compensation to the owner. - -Jesus fed large multitudes of people under circumstances of a most -ultra-thaumaturgic character. To the first book of Euclid is prefixed an -axiom "that the whole is greater than its part." John Wesley was wise if -it be true that he eschewed mathematics lest it should lead him to -infidelity. If any man be irreligious enough to accept Euclid's axiom, -he will be compelled to reject the miraculous feeding of 5,000 people -with five loaves and two small fishes. The original difficulty of the -miracle, though not increased, is made hard to the common mind by the -assertion that after the multitude had been fed, twelve basketsfull of -fragments remained. - -Jesus is related to have walked on the sea when it was very stormy, and -when "the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew." Walking on the -water is a great feat even if the sea be calm, but when the waves run -high it is still more wonderful. - -The miracle of turning water into wine at Cana, in Galilee, is worthy -attention, when considering the question, Who was Jesus Christ? Jesus -and his disciples had been called to a marriage feast, and when there -the company fell short of wine. The mother of Jesus, to whom the -Catholics offer worship, and to whom they pay great adoration, informed -Jesus of the deficiency, and was answered, "Woman, what have I to do -with thee? mine hour is not yet come." His mother seemed to have -expected a miracle, yet in the Fourth Gospel the Cana wonder was the -beginning of miracle working by Jesus; the apocryphal gospels assert -that Jesus practised miracle working as a child. Jesus having obtained -six waterpots full of water, turned them into wine. Teetotallers who -cannot believe God would specially provide means of drunkenness, urge -that this wine was not of intoxicating quality, though there is nothing -in the text to justify their hypothesis. The curious connexion between -the phrase "well drunk," and the time at which the miracle was -performed, would rather warrant the supposition that the guests were -already in such a state as to render it difficult for them to critically -appreciate the new vintage. The moral effects of this miracle are not -easily appreciable. - -Shortly after this Jesus went to the temple with a scourge of small -cords, and drove thereout the cattle dealers and money changers who had -assembled there in the ordinary course of their business. The writer of -the Fourth Gospel places this event very early in the public life of -Jesus. The writer of the Third Gospel fixes the occurrence much later. - -Jesus being hungry went to a fig-tree, to gather figs, though the season -of figs was not yet come. Of course there were no figs upon the tree, -and Jesus then caused the tree to wither away. This is specially -interesting as a problem for a true orthodox trinitarian who will -believe--first, that Jesus was God, who made the tree, and prevented it -from bearing figs; second, that God the all-wise, who is not subject to -human passions, being hungry, went to the fig-tree, on which he knew -there could be no figs, expecting to find some there; third, that God -the all-just then punished the tree, because it did not bear figs in -opposition to God's eternal ordination. - -Jesus had a disciple named Peter, who, having much Christian faith, was -a great coward and denied his leader in his hour of need. Jesus though -previously aware that Peter would be a traitor, yet gave him the keys of -the kingdom of Heaven, and told him that whatsoever he bound on earth -should be bound in Heaven. Peter was to have denied Jests three times -before the cock should crow (Matt. xxvi, 34). The cock crowed before -Peter's second denial (Mark xiv, 68). Commentators urge that the words -used do not refer to the crowing of any particular cock, but to a -special hour of the morning called "cock-crow." But if the Gospel be -true, the explanation is false. Peter's denial becomes the more -extraordinary when we remember that he had seen Moses, Jesus, and Elias -talking together, and had heard a voice from a cloud say, "This is my -beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased." As Peter could thus deny Jesus -after having heard God vouch his divinity, and Peter not only escapes -punishment, but gets the office of gatekeeper to Heaven, how much more -should those escape punishment and obtain reward, who only deny because -they cannot help it, and who have been left without any corroborative -evidence of sight or hearing? - -The Jesus of the First Gospel promised that, as Jonas was three days and -three nights in the whale's belly, so he (Jesus) would be three days and -three nights in the heart of the earth. Yet he was buried on Friday -evening, and was out of the grave before Saturday night was over. Some -say that the Jews reckoned part of a day as a whole one. - -The translators have made Jesus perform a curious equestrian feat on his -entry into Jerusalem. The text (Matt. xxi, 7) says they "brought the ass -and the colt and put on them their clothes and set him thereon." This -does not mean that he rode on both at one time; it only says so. On the -cross the Jesus of the Four Gospels, who was God, cried out, "My God, my -God, why hast thou forsaken me?" God cannot forsake himself. Jesus was -God himself. Yet God forsook Jesus, and the latter cried out to know why -he was forsaken. Any able divine will explain that of course he knew, -and that he was not forsaken. The explanation renders it difficult to -believe the dying cry, and the passage becomes one of the mysteries of -the holy Christian religion, which, unless a man rightly believe, -"without doubt he shall perish everlastingly." At the crucifixion of -Jesus wonderful miracles took place "The graves were opened, and many -bodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the grave after -his resurrection and appeared unto many." Which saints were these? They -"appeared unto many," but there is not the slightest evidence outside -the Bible that anyone ever saw them. Their "bodies" came out of the -graves. Do not the bodies of the saints decompose like those of ordinary -human beings? - -Jesus must have much changed in the grave, for his disciples did not -know him when he stood on the shore (John xxi, 4), and Mary, most -attached to him, knew him not, but supposed that he was the gardener. -According to the First Gospel, Jesus appeared to two women after his -resurrection, and afterwards met eleven of his disciples by appointment -on a mountain in Galilee. When was this appointment made? The text on -which divines rely is Matt. xxvi, 32; this makes no such appointment. -According to the Second Gospel, he appeared first to one woman, and when -she told the disciples they did not believe it. Yet, on pain of -indictment now and damnation hereafter, we are bound to unhesitatingly -accept that which the disciples of Jesus rejected. By the Second Gospel -we learn that instead of the eleven going to Galilee after Jesus, he -came to them as they sat at meat. In the Third Gospel he first appeared -to two of his disciples at Emmaus, and they did not know him until they -had been a long time in his company--it was evening before they -recognised him. Unfortunately, directly they knew him they did not see -him, for as soon as they knew him he vanished out of their sight. He -immediately afterwards appeared to the eleven at Jerusalem, and not at -Galilee, as stated in the First Gospel. Jesus asked for some meat, and -the disciples gave him a portion of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb, -and he did eat. Jesus was afterwards taken up into Heaven, a cloud -received him, and he was missed. God is everywhere, and Heaven no more -above than below, but it is necessary we should believe that Jesus has -ascended into Heaven to sit on the right hand of God, who is infinite -and has no right hand. Was Jesus Christ a man? If limited for our answer -to the mere Gospel Jesus--surely not. His whole career is, on any -literal reading, simply a series of improbabilities or contradictions. -Who was Christ? born of a virgin, and of divine parentage? So too were -many of the mythic Sungods and so was Krishna, whose story, similar in -many respects with that of Jesus, was current long prior to the -Christian era. - -Was Jesus Christ man or myth? His story being fable, is the hero a -reality? That a man named Jesus really lived and performed some special -actions attracting popular attention, and thus became the centre for a -hundred myths may well be true, but beyond this what is there of solid -fact? - - - - -WHAT DID JESUS TEACH? - - -THE language in which Jesus taught, has not been preserved to us. Who -recorded his actual words, or if any real record ever existed, is all -matter of guess. Who translated the words of Jesus into the Greek no one -knows. In the compass of four pamphlets, attributed to four persons, of -whose connexion with the Gospels, as we have them, little or nothing -whatever can be ascertained, we have what are, by the orthodox, supposed -to be the words in which Jesus actually taught. What did he teach? -Manly, self-reliant resistance of wrong, and practice of right? No; the -key-stone of his whole teaching may be found in the text: "Blessed are -the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew v, 3) -Is poverty of spirit the chief amongst virtues, that Jesus gives it -prime place in his teachings? Is it even a virtue at all? Surely not. -Manliness of spirit, honesty of spirit, fulness of rightful purpose, -these are virtues; poverty of spirit is a crime. When men are poor in -spirit, then the proud and haughty in spirit oppress them. When men are -true in spirit and determined (as true men should be) to resist, and as -far as possible, prevent wrong, then is there greater opportunity for -present happiness, and, as even Christians ought to admit, no lesser -fitness for the enjoyment of further happiness, in some may-be heaven. -Are you poor in spirit, and are you smitten; in such case what did Jesus -teach?--"Unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the -other." (Luke, vi, 29) Surely better to teach that "he who courts -oppression shares the crime;" and, if smitten once to take careful -measure to prevent a future smiting. Jesus teaches actual invitation of -injury. Shelley breathed higher humanity: - - "Stand ye calm and resolute, - Like a forest close and mute, - With folded arms and looks, which are - Weapons of an unvanquished war." - -There is a wide distinction between passive resistance to wrong, and -courting further injury at the hands of the wrongdoer. - -In the teaching of Jesus, poverty of spirit is enforced to the fullest -conceivable extent: "Him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take -thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that -taketh away thy goods, ask them not again." (Luke vi, 29, 30) Poverty of -person, is the only possible sequence to this extraordinary -manifestation of poverty of spirit. Poverty of person is attended with -many unpleasantnesses; and Jesus, who knew that poverty would result -from his teaching, says, as if he wished to keep the poor content -through their lives with poverty, "Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the -kingdom of God." (Luke vi, 20) "But woe unto you that are rich, for ye -have received your consolation." (Luke vi, 24) He pictures one in hell, -whose only related vice is that in life he was rich; and another in -heaven, whose only related virtue is that in life he was poor (Luke xvi, -19-31). He affirms it is more difficult for a rich man to get into -heaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (Luke xvii, -25). The only intent of such teaching could be to induce the poor to -remain content in this life, with the want and misery of their wretched -state in the hope of higher recompense in some future life. Is it good -to be content with poverty? Is it not far better to investigate the -causes of poverty, with a view to its cure and prevention? The doctrine -is most horrid which declares that the poor shall not cease from the -face of the earth. Poor in spirit and poor in pocket, with no courage to -work for food, or money to purchase it, we might well expect to find the -man with empty stomach also who held these doctrines; and what does -Jesus teach? "Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled." -(Luke vi, 21) He does not say when the filling shall take place. The -date is evidently postponed until men will have no stomachs to -replenish? It is not in this life that the hunger is to be sated. "Woe -unto you that are full, for ye shall hunger." (Luke vi, 25) It would but -little advantage the hungry man to bless him by filling him, if a curse -awaited the completion of his repast. Craven in spirit, with an empty -purse and hungry mouth--what next? The man who has not manliness enough -to prevent wrong, will probably bemoan his hard fate, and cry bitterly -that sore are the misfortunes he endures. And what does Jesus teach? -"Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh." (Luke vi, 21) Is -this true, and, if true, when shall the laughter come? "Blessed are they -that mourn, for they shall be comforted." (Matthew v, 4) Aye, but when? -Not while they mourn and weep. Weeping for the past is vain: a deluge of -tears will not wash away its history. Weeping for the present is worse -than vain--it obstructs your sight. In each minute of your life the -aforetime future is present born, and you need dry and keen eyes to give -it and yourself a safe and happy deliverance. When shall they that mourn -be comforted? Are slaves that weep salt tear-drops on their chains -comforted in their weeping. Each pearly overflowing as it falls rusts -mind, as well as fetter. Ye who are slaves and weep, will never be -comforted until you dry your eyes, and nerve your arms, and, in the -plenitude of manliness: - - "Shake your chains to earth like dew, - Which in sleep hath fallen on you." - -Jesus teaches that the poor, the hungry, and the wretched shall be -blessed? But blessing only comes when they cease to be poor, hungry, and -wretched. Contentment under poverty, hunger, and misery is high treason, -not to yourself alone, but to your fellows. Slavery spreads quickly -wherever humanity is stagnant and content with wrong. - -What did Jesus teach? "Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." -(Matthew xix, 19) But how if thy neighbor will not hear thy doctrine -when thou preachest the "glad tidings of great joy" to him? Then -forgetting all your love, and with the bitter hatred that a theological -disputant alone can manifest, you "shall shake off the dust from your -feet," and by so doing make it more tolerable in the day of judgment for -the land of Sodom and Gomorrah, than for your unfortunate neighbor who -has ventured to reject your teaching (Matthew x, 14, 15). It is mockery -to speak as if love could really result from the dehumanising and -isolating faith required from the disciple of Jesus. Ignatius Loyola in -this, at least, was more consistent than his Protestant brethren. "If -any man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and -children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he -cannot be my disciple." (Luke xiv, 26) "Think not that I am come to send -peace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I come to set -a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her -mother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's -foes they shall be of his own household." (Matthew x, 34-36) "Every one -that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or -mother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, shall receive an -hundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life." (Matthew xix, 29) The -teaching of Jesus is, in fact, save yourself by yourself. The teaching -of humanity should be, to save yourself save your fellow. The human -family is a vast chain, each man and woman a link. There is no snapping -off one link and preserving for it, isolated from the rest, an entirety -of happiness; our joy depends on our brother's also. Jesus teaches that -"many are called, but few are chosen;" that the majority will inherit an -eternity of misery, while but the minority obtain eternal happiness. And -on what is the eternity of bliss to depend? On a truthful course of -life? Not so. Jesus puts Father Abraham in Heaven, whose reputation for -faith outstrips his character for veracity. The passport through -Heaven's portals is faith. "He that believeth and is baptised shall be -saved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned." (Mark xvi, 16) Are -you married? You love your wife? Both die. You from first to last had -said, "I believe," much as a well-trained parrot might say it. You had -never examined your reasons for your faith; as a true believer should, -you distrusted the efficacy of your carnal reason. You said, "I believe -in God and Jesus Christ," because you had been taught to say it, and you -would have as glibly said, "I believe in Allah, and in Mahomet his -prophet," had your birth-place been a few degrees eastward, and your -parents and instructors Turks. You believed in this life, and after -death awake in Heaven. Your much-loved wife did not think as you -did--she could not. Her organisation, education, and temperament were -all different from your own. She disbelieved because she could not -believe. She was a good wife, but she disbelieved. A good and -affectionate mother, but she disbelieved. A virtuous and kindly woman, -but she disbelieved. And you are to be happy for an eternity in Heaven, -with the knowledge that she is writhing in agony in Hell. If this be -true, Shelley was right in declaring that your Christianity: - - "Peoples earth with demons, hell with men, - And heaven with slaves." - -It is urged that Jesus is the savior of the world, who brought -redemption without let or stint to the whole human race. But what did -Jesus teach? "Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and into any city of -the Samaritan enter ye not," (Matthew x, 6) were his injunctions to -those whom he first sent out to preach. "I am not sent but unto the lost -sheep of the house of Israel," is his hard answer to the poor -Syrophenician woman who entreated succor for her child. Christianity, as -first taught by Jesus, was for the Jews alone, it was only when rejected -by them, that the world at large had the opportunity of salvation -afforded it. "He came unto his own and his own received him not." (John -i, 11) Why should the Jews be more God's own than the Gentiles? Is God -the creator of all? did he create the descendant of Abraham with greater -right and privilege than all other men? Then, indeed, is grievous -injustice. You had no choice whether to be born Jew or Gentile; yet to -the accident of such a birth is attached the first offer of a salvation -which, if accepted, shuts out all beside. - -The Kingdom of Heaven is a prominent feature in the teachings of Jesus. -Examine the picture drawn by God incarnate of his own special domain. -'Tis likened to a wedding feast, (Matthew xxii, 2) to which the invited -guests coming not, servants were sent out into the highways to gather -all they can find--both good and bad. The King, examining his motley -array of guests, and finding one without a wedding garment inquired why -he came in to the feast without one. The man, whose attendance had been -compulsorily enforced, was speechless. And who can wonder? he was a -guest from necessity, not choice, he neither chose the fashion of his -coming, or that of his attiring. Then comes the King's decree, the -command of the all-merciful and loving King of Heaven. "Bind him hand -and foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and -gnashing of teeth." Commentators urge that it was the custom to provide -wedding garments for all guests, and that this man was punished for his -non-acceptance of the customary and ready robe. The text does not -warrant this explanation, but gives as moral of the parable, that an -invitation to the heavenly feast will not ensure partakal of it, for -that "many are called, but few are chosen." What more of the Kingdom of -Heaven? "Joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more -than over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance." (Luke -xv, 7) The greater sinner one has been, the better saint he makes, and -the more he has sinned, so much the more he loves God. "To whom little -is forgiven, the same loveth little." (Luke vii, 47) Thus asserting that -a life of vice, with its stains washed away by a death-bed repentance, -is better than a life of consistent and virtuous conduct? Why should the -fatted calf be killed for the prodigal son? (Luke xv, 27) Why should men -be taught to make to themselves friends of the mammon of -unrighteousness? (Luke xvi, 9) These ambiguities, these assertions of -punishment and forgiveness of crime, instead of directions for its -prevention and cure, are serious blots on a system alleged to have been -inculcated by one for whom his followers claim divinity. - -Will you urge the love of Jesus as the redeeming feature of the -teaching? Then read the story of the fig tree (Matthew xxi, 18-22; Mark -xi, 12-24) withered by the hungry Jesus. The fig tree was, if he were -all-powerful God, made by him; he limited its growth and regulated its -development; he prevented it from bearing figs, expected fruit where he -had rendered fruit impossible, and in his _infinite love_ was angry that -the tree had not upon it that it could not have. What love is expressed -in that remarkable speech which follows one of his parables:--"For, I -say unto you, that unto every one which hath shall be given, and from -him that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him. -_But those, mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, -bring them hither, and slay them before me_." (Luke xix, 26, 27) What -love is expressed by that Jesus who, if he were God, represents himself -as saying to the majority of his unfortunate creatures (for it is the -few that are chosen):--"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting -fire, prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew xxv, 41) There is -no love in this horrid doctrine of eternal torment. And yet the popular -preachers of to-day talk first of the love of God and then of: - - "Hell, a red gulf of everlasting fire, - Where poisons and undying worms prolong - Eternal misery to those hapless slaves, - Whose life has been a penance for its crimes." - -In the sayings attributed to Jesus there is the passage which influenced -so extraordinarily the famous Origen (Matthew xix, 12). If he understood -it aright, its teachings are most terrible. If he understood it wrongly, -what of the wisdom of teaching which expresses itself so vaguely? The -general intent of Christ's teaching seems to be an inculcation of -neglect of this life, in the search for another. "Labor not for the meat -which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting -life." (John vi, 27) "Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat, -or what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on... -take no thought saying, what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or -wherewithal shall we be clothed?.... But seek ye first the Kingdom of -God and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto -you." (Matthew vi, 25-33) These texts, if fully observed, would be most -disastrous; they would stay all scientific discoveries, prevent all -development of man's energies. In the struggle for existence, men are -compelled to become acquainted with the conditions which compel -happiness or misery. It is only in the practical application of that -knowledge, that the wants of society are ascertained, and disease, -poverty, hunger, and wretchedness prevented, or at any rate lessened. -Jesus substitutes "I believe," for "I think," and puts "watch and pray" -instead of "think, then act." Belief is the prominent doctrine which -pervades, and governs all Christianity. It is represented that, at the -judgment, the world will be reproved "Of sin, because they believe not." -This teaching is most disastrous; man should be incited to active -thought: Christian belief would bind him to the teachings of a stagnant -past. Fit companion to blind belief is slave-like prayer. Men pray as -though God needed most abject entreaty ere he would grant justice. What -does Jesus teach on prayer? "After this manner pray ye--Our Father, -which art in heaven." Do you think that God is the Father of all, when -you pray that he will enable you to defeat some others of his children, -with whom your nation is at war? And why "which art in Heaven?" Where is -your Heaven? You look upward, and if you were at the Antipodes, would -look upward still. But that upward would be downward to us. Do you -localize Heaven? Why say "which art in Heaven?" Is God infinite, then he -is also in earth. "Hallowed be thy name." "What is God's name? if you -know it not how can you hallow it? how can God's name be hallowed even -if you know it?" "Thy kingdom come." What is God's kingdom, and will -your praying bring it quicker? Is it the Judgment day, and do you who -say "Love one another," pray for the more speedy arrival of that day, on -which God may say to your fellow "depart ye cursed into everlasting -fire?" "Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven." How is God's -will done in heaven? If the Devil be a fallen angel, there must have -been rebellion even there. "Give us this day our daily bread." Will the -prayer get it without work? No. Will work get it without prayer? Yes. -Why pray, then, for bread to God, who says, "Blessed be ye that -hunger... woe unto you that are full?" "And forgive us our debts, as we -forgive our debtors." (Matthew vi, 12) What debts have you to God? Sins? -Coleridge writes, "A sin is an evil which has its ground or origin in -the agent, and not in the compulsion of circumstances. Circumstances are -compulsory, from the absence of a power to resist or control them: and -if the absence likewise be the effect of circumstances... the evil -derives from the circumstances... and such evil is not sin."[36] Do you -say that you are independent of all circumstances, that you can control -them, that you have a free will? Buckle replies that the assertion of a -free will "involves two assumptions, of which the first, though possibly -true, has never been proved, and the second is unquestionably false. -These assumptions are that there is an independent faculty, called -consciousness, and that the dictates of that faculty are -infallible."[37] "And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from -evil." (Matthew vi, 13) Do you think God may lead you into temptation? -if so, you cannot think him all good; if not all-good he is not God. If -God, the prayer is blasphemy. - - [36] "Aids to Reflection," 1843, p. 200. - - [37] "History of Civilisation," Vol. I, p. 14. - -Jesus, according to the general declaration of Christian divines, came -to die, and what does he teach by his death? The Rev. F.D. Maurice well -said, "That he who kills for a faith must be weak, that he who dies for -a faith must be strong." How did Jesus die? Giordano Bruno and Julius -Caesar Vanini were burned, charged with heresy. They died calm, heroic, -defiant of wrong. Jesus, who could not die courted death, that he, as -God, might accept his own atonement, and might pardon man for a sin -which the pardoned man had not committed, and in which he had no share. -The death Jesus courted came, and when it came he could not face it, but -prayed to himself that he might not die. And at last, when on the cross, -if two gospels do him no injustice his last words were a bitter cry of -deep despair. "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" The Rev. -Enoch Mellor writing on the Atonement, says, "I seek not to fathom the -profound mystery of these words. To understand their full import would -require one to experience the agony of desertion they express." Do the -words, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" express an "agony" -caused by a consciousness of "desertion?" if this be not the meaning -conveyed by the despairing death-cry then there is in it no meaning -whatever. And if those words do express a "bitter agony of desertion" -then they emphatically contradict the teachings of Jesus. "Before -Abraham was, I am." "I and my father are one." "Thou shalt not tempt the -Lord thy God." These were the words of Jesus--words conveying an -impression that divinity was claimed by the one who uttered them. If -Jesus had indeed been God, the words "My God, my God," would have been a -mockery most extreme. God could not have deemed himself forsaken by -himself. The dying Jesus, in that despair, confessed himself either the -dupe of some other teaching, a self-deluded enthusiast, or an -arch-impostor, who in that bitter cry, with the wide-opening of the -flood-gates through which life's stream ran out, confessed aloud that -he, at least, was no deity, and deemed himself a God-forsaken man. The -garden scene of agony is fitting prelude to this most terrible act. -Jesus, who is God, prays to himself: in "agony he prayed most earnestly" -(Luke xxii, 44) He refuses to hear his own prayers, and he, the -omnipotent, is forearmed against his coming trial by an angel from -heaven, who "strengthened" the great Creator. Was Jesus the Son of God? -Praying, he said "Father the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son -also may glorify thee." (John xvii, 2) And was he glorified? His death -and resurrection most strongly disbelieved in the very city where they -are alleged to have happened. His doctrines rejected by the only people -to whom he preached them. His miracles denied by the only nation amongst -whom they are alleged to have been performed; and he himself thus on the -cross crying out, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" - -Nor is it true that the teachings of Jesus are generally received. Jesus -taught: "And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name -shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they -shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not -hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover." -(Mark xvi, 17, 18) How many of those who profess to believe in Jesus -would be content to be tested by these signs? Any person claiming that -each sign was to be found manifested in her or his case would be -regarded as mad. Illustrations of faith-healing occasionally arise, but -are not always reliable, nor are such cures limited to those who profess -faith in Jesus. The gift of speaking with new tongues has been the claim -of a very small sect. Serpent charming is more practised amongst Hindus -than amongst Christians. - -Peace and love are alleged to be the special characteristics of -Christianity. Yet the whole history of Christian nations has been -blurred by war and hate. Now and for the past thirty years the most -civilized amongst Christian nations have been devoting enormous sums and -huge masses of men to the preparation for war. Torpedoes and explosive -shells, one hundred ton guns and mele-nite, are by Christian rulers -accounted better aids than faith in Jesus. - - - - -THE TWELVE APOSTLES - - -ALL good Christians, indeed all Christians--for are there any who are -not models of goodness?--will desire that their fellow-creatures who are -unbelievers should have the fullest possible information, biographical -or otherwise, as as to the twelve persons specially chosen by Jesus to -be his immediate followers. The believer, of course, would be equally -content with his faith in the absence of all historic vouchers. Indeed a -pious worshipper would cling to his creed not only without testimony in -its favor, but despite direct testimony against it. It is to those not -within the pale of the church that I shall seek to demonstrate the -credibility of the history of the twelve apostles. The short -biographical sketch here presented is extracted from the first five -books of the New Testament, two of which at least are attributed to two -of the twelve. It is objected, by heretical men who go as far in their -criticisms on the Gospels as Colenso does with the Pentateuch, that not -one of the gospels is original or written by any of the apostles; that, -on the contrary, they were preceded by numerous writings, since lost or -rejected, these in their turn having for their basis the oral tradition -which preceded them. It is alleged that the four gospels are utterly -anonymous, and that the fourth gospel is subject to strong suspicions of -spuriousness. To use on this part of the words of the author of -"Supernatural Religion," applied by him to the Acts of the Apostles: "As -a general rule, any documents so full of miraculous episodes and -supernatural occurrences would, without hesitation, be characterized as -fabulous and incredible, and would not, by any sober-minded reader, be -for a moment accepted as historical. There is no other testimony." It -would be useless to combat, and I therefore boldly ignore these attacks -on the authenticity of the text, and proceed with my history. The names -of the twelve are as follows--Simon, surnamed Peter; Andrew, his -brother; James and John, the sons of Zebedee; Andrew, Philip; -Bartholomew; Matthew; James, the son of Alphteus; Simon, the Canaanite; -Judas Iscariot; and a twelfth, as to whose name there is some -uncertainty; it was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is in -Matthew alone (x, 3) that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned -thus--"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus." We are told, on this -point, by able Biblicists, that the early MSS have not the words "whose -surname was Thaddaeus," and that these words have probably been inserted -to reconcile the gospel according to Matthew with that attributed to -Mark. How good must have been the old fathers who sought to improve upon -the Holy Ghost by making clear that which inspiration had left doubtful! -In the English version of the Rheims Testament used in this country by -our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation between Matthew and Mark -is completed by omitting the words "Lebbaeus whose surname was," leaving -only the name "Thad-daeus" in Matthew's text. This omission must be -correct, being by the authority of an infallible church, and Dr. Newman -shows us that when the church pronounces all doubt is damnable. If -Matthew x, 3, and Mark iii, 18, be passed as reconciled, although the -first calls the twelfth disciple Lebbaeus, and the second gives him the -name Thaddaeus, there is yet the difficulty that in Luke vi, 16, -corroborated by John xiv, 22, there is a disciple spoken of as "Judas, -not Iscariot." "Judas, _the brother_ of James." Commentators have -endeavored to clear away this last difficulty by declaring that -Thaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the same meaning as Judas. This -has been answered by the objection that if Matthew's Gospel uses -Thaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of Thaddaeus -Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected also that while -there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew original for the gospel -attributed to Matthew, there is not the slightest pretence for alleging -that Matthew wrote in Syriac. It is to be hoped that the unbelieving -reader will not stumble on the threshold of his study because of a -little uncertainty as to a name. What is in a name? The Jewish name -which we read as Jesus is really Joshua, but the name to which we are -most accustomed seems the one we should adhere to. - -Simon Peter being the first named amongst the disciples of Jesus, -deserves the first place in this notice. The word "Simon" may be -rendered, if taken as a Greek name, _flat-nose_ or _ugly_. Some of the -ancient Greek and Hebrew names are characteristic of peculiarities in -the individual, but no one now knows whether Peter's nose had anything -to do with his name. Simon is rather a Hebrew name, but Peter is Greek, -signifying a rock or stone. Peter is supposed to have the keys of the -kingdom of heaven, and his second name may express his stony -insensibility to all appeals by infidels for admittance to the celestial -regions. Lord Byron's "Vision of Judgment" is the highest known -authority as to Saint Peter's celestial duties, but this nobleman's -poems are only fit for very pious readers. Peter, ere he became a -parson, was by trade a fisher, and when Jesus first saw Peter, the -latter was in a vessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net -into the sea of Galilee. The calling of Peter and Andrew to the -apostleship was sudden, and apparently unexpected. Jesus walking by the -sea said to them--"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." -(Matthew iv, 18-22) The two brothers did so, and they became Christ's -disciples. The successors of Peter have since reversed the apostle's -early practice: instead of now casting their nets into the sea, the -modern representatives of the disciples of Jesus draw the sees into -their nets, and, it is believed, find the result much more profitable. -When Jesus called Peter no one was with him but his brother Andrew; a -little further on the two sons of Zebedee were in a ship with their -father mending nets. This is the account of Peter's call given in the -gospel according to Matthew, and as according to the Church Matthew was -inspired by the Holy Ghost, who is identical with God the Father, who is -one with God the Son, who is Jesus, the account must be free from error. -In the Gospel according to John, which is likewise inspired in the same -manner, from the same source, and with similar infallibility, we learn -that Andrew was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when -Andrew first saw Jesus Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found -Peter who, if fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him "we -have found the Messiah," and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, -who said: "Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called -Cephas." There is no mention in this gospel narrative of the sons of -Zebedee being a little further on, or of any fishing in the sea of -Galilee. This call is clearly on land, whether or not near the sea of -Galilee does not appear. In the Gospel according to Luke, which is as -much inspired as either of the two before-mentioned gospels, and, -therefore, equally authentic with each of them, we are told (Luke v, -1-11) that when the call took place Jesus and Peter were both at sea. -Jesus had been preaching to the people, who, pressing upon him, he got -into Simon's ship, from which he preached. After this he directed Simon -to put out into the deep and let down the nets. Simon answered: "Master, -we have toiled all night, and taken nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I -will let down the net." No sooner was this done than the net was filled -to breaking, and Simon's partners, the two sons of Zebedee, came to -help, when, at the call of Jesus, they brought their ships to land, and -followed him. From these accounts the unbeliever may learn that when -Jesus called Peter either both Jesus and Peter were on the land, or one -was on land and the other on the sea, or both of them were at sea. He -may also learn that the sons of Zebedee were present at the time, having -come to help to get in the great catch, and were called with Peter; or -that they were further on, sitting mending nets with their father, and -were called afterwards; or that they were neither present nor near at -hand. He may also be assured that Simon was in his ship when Jesus came -to call him, and that Jesus was on land when Andrew, Simon's brother, -found Simon and brought him to Jesus to be called. The unbeliever must -not hesitate because of any apparent incoherence or contradiction in the -narrative. The greater the difficulty in believing, the more deserved -the reward which only comes to belief. With faith it is easy to -harmonise the three narratives above quoted, especially when you know -that Jesus had visited Simon's house before the call of Simon, (Luke iv, -38) but did not go to Simon's house until after Simon had been called -(Matthew viii, 14). Jesus went to Simon's house and cured his wife's -mother of a fever. Robert Taylor,[38] commenting on the fever-curing -miracle, says--"St. Luke tells us that this fever had taken the woman, -not that the woman had taken the fever, and not that the fever was a -very bad fever, or a yellow fever, or a scarlet fever, but that it was a -great fever--that is, I suppose, a fever six feet high at least; a -personal fever, a rational and intelligent fever, that would yield to -the power of Jesus's argument, but would never have given way to James's -powder. So we are expressly told that Jesus rebuked the fever--that is, -he gave it a good scolding; asked it, I dare say, how it could be so -unreasonable as to plague the poor old woman so cruelly, and whether it -wasn't ashamed of itself; and said, perhaps, _Get out, you naughty -wicked fever, you_; and such like objurgatory language, which the fever, -not being used to be rebuked in such a manner, and being a very sensible -sort of fever, would not stand, but immediately left the old woman in -high dudgeon." This Robert Taylor, although a clergyman of the Church of -England, has been convicted of blasphemy and imprisoned for writing in -such wicked language about the Bible. Simon Peter, as a disciple, -performed many miracles, some when in company with Jesus, and more when -separately by himself. These miracles, though themselves unvouched by -any reliable testimony, and disbelieved by the people amongst whom they -were worked, are strong evidence in favor of the apostolic character -claimed for Peter. - - [38] "Devil's Pulpit," vol. i, p. 148. - -On one occasion the whole of the disciples were sent away by Jesus in a -ship, the Savior remaining behind to pray. About the fourth watch of the -night, when the ship was in the midst of the sea, Jesus went unto his -disciples, walking on the sea. Though Jesus went unto his disciples, -and, as an expeditious way, I suppose, of arriving with them, he would -have passed by them, but they saw him, and supposing him to be a spirit, -cried out. Jesus bid them be of good cheer, to which Peter answered, -(Matthew xiv, 23) "Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee." Jesus -said, "Come," and Peter walked on the water to go to Jesus. But the sea -being wet and the wind boisterous, Peter became afraid, and instead of -walking on the water began to sink into it, and cried out "Lord save -me," and immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught Peter. - -Some object that the two gospels according to John and Mark, which both -record the feat of water-walking by Jesus, omit all mention of Peter's -attempt. Probably the Holy Ghost had good reasons for omitting it. A -profane mind might make a jest of an Apostle "half seas over," and -ridicule an apostolic gatekeeper who could not keep his head above -water. - -Peter's partial failure in this instance should drive away all unbelief, -as the text will show that it was only for lack of faith that - -Peter lost his buoyancy. Simon is called Bar-Jonah, that is, son of -Jonah, but I am not aware that he is any relation to the Jonah who lived -under water in the belly of a fish three days and three nights. - -It was Simon Peter who, having told Jesus he was the Son of God, was -answered "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, flesh and blood hath not -revealed it unto thee." (Matthew xvi, 17) We find a number of disciples -shortly before this, and in Peter's presence, telling Jesus that he was -the Son of God, (Matthew xiv, 33) but there is, of course, no real -contradiction between the two texts. It was on this occasion that Jesus -said to Simon, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my -Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will -give thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt -bind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose -on earth shall be loosed in Heaven." Under these extraordinary -declarations from the mouth of God the Son, the Bishops of Rome have -claimed, as successors of Peter, the same privileges, and their -pretensions have been acceded to by some of the most powerful monarchs -of Europe. - -Under this claim the Bishops, or Popes of Rome, have at various times -issued Papal Bulls, by which they have sought to bind the entire world. -Many of these have been very successful; but in 1302, Philip the Fair, -of France, publicly burned the Pope Boniface's Bull after an address in -which the States-General had denounced, in words more expressive than -polite, the right of the Popes of Rome to Saint Peter's keys on earth. -Some deny that the occupiers of the episcopal seat in the seven-hilled -city are really of the Church of Christ, and they point to the bloody -quarrels which have raged between men, contending for the Papal dignity. -They declare that those Vicars of Christ have more than once resorted to -fraud, treachery, and murder, to secure the Papal dignity. They point to -Stephen VII, the son of an unmarried priest, who cut off the head of his -predecessor's corpse; to Sergius III, convicted of assassination; to -John X, who was strangled in the bed of his paramor Theodora; to John -XI, son of Pope Sergius III, famous only for his drunken debauchery; to -John XII, found assassinated in the apartments of his mistress; to -Benedict IX, who both purchased and sold the Pontificate; to Gregory -VII, the pseudo lover of the Countess Matilda, and the author of -centuries of war carried on by his successors. And if these suffice not, -they point to Alexander Borgia, whose name is but the echo of crime, and -whose infamy will be as lasting as history. It is answered: "By the -fruit ye shall judge of the tree." It is useless to deny the vine's -existence because the grapes are sour. Peter, the favored disciple, it -is declared was a rascal, and why not his successors? They have only to -repent, and there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that re-penteth -than over ninety and nine righteous men. Such language is very terrible, -and arises from allowing the carnal reason too much freedom. - -All true believers will be familiar with the story of Peter's sudden -readiness to deny his Lord and teacher in the hour of danger, and will -easily draw the right moral from the mysterious lesson here taught; but -unbelievers may be a little inclined to agree with the common infidel -objections on this point. These objections, therefore, shall be first -stated, and then refuted in the most orthodox fashion. It is objected -that all the denials were to take place before the cock should crow, -(Matthew xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38) but that only one -denial actually took place before the cock crew (Mark xiv, 68). That the -first denial by Peter that he knew Jesus, or was one of his disciples, -was at the door to the damsel, (John xviii, 17) but was inside while -sitting by the fire, (Luke xxii, 57) that the second denial was to a -man, and apparently still sitting by the fire (Luke xvii, 58), but was -to a maid when he was gone out into the porch. That these denials, or at -any rate, the last denial, were all in the presence of Jesus (Luke xvii, -61), who turned and looked at Peter, but that the first denial was at -the door, Jesus being inside the palace, the second denial out in the -porch, Jesus being still inside (Mark xiv, 69), and the third denial -also outside. The refutation of these paltry objections is so simple, -that any little child could give it, and none but an infidel would need -to hear it, we therefore refrain from penning it. None but a disciple of -Paine, or follower of Voltaire, would permit himself to be drawn to the -risk of damnation on the mere question as to when some cock happened to -crow, or as to the particular spot on which a recreant apostle denied -his master. It is the merest justice to Peter to add that his disloyalty -to Jesus was shared by his co-apostles. When Jesus was arrested "all the -disciples forsook him and fled" (Matthew xxvi, 56). The true believer -may sometimes be puzzled that Peter should so deny Jesus after he, -Peter, had seen (Matthew xvii, 3-5) Moses and Elias, who had been dead -many centuries, talking with Jesus, and had heard "a voice out of the -cloud which said, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -The unbeliever must not allow himself to be puzzled by this. Two of the -twelve apostles, whose names are not given, saw Jesus after he was dead, -on the road to Emmaus, but they did not know him; towards evening they -knew him, and he vanished out of their sight. In broad daylight they did -not know him, at evening time they knew him. While they did not know him -they could see him, when they did know him they could not see him. Well -may true believers declare that the ways of the Lord are wonderful. One -of the apostles, Thomas, called Didymus, set the world an example of -unbelief. He disbelieved the other disciples when they said to him, "we -have seen the Lord," and required to see Jesus, though dead, alive in -the flesh, and touch the body of his crucified master. Thomas the -apostle had his requirements complied with --he saw, he touched, and he -believed. The great merit is to believe without any evidence--"He that -believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be -damned." How it was that Thomas the apostle did not know Jesus when he -saw him shortly after near the sea of Tiberias, is another of the -mysteries of the Holy Christian religion. The acts of the apostles after -the death of Jesus deserve treatment in a separate paper; the present -essay is issued to aid the members of the Church Congress in their -endeavors to stem the rising tide of infidelity. - - - - -THE ATONEMENT - - -"_Quel est donc ce Dieu qui fait mourir Dieu pour apaiser Dieu?_" - -THE chief feature of the Christian religion is that Jesus, the Son of -God, "very God of very God," sacrificed himself, or was sacrificed by -God the Father, to atone for Adam's transgression, some 4,000 years -before, against a divine command. It is declared in the New Testament, -in clear and emphatic language, that in consequence of the one man -Adam's sin, death entered into the world, and judgment and condemnation -came upon all men. It is also declared that "Christ died for the -ungodly;" "that he died for our sins," and "was delivered for our -offences." On the one hand it is urged that Adam, the sole source of the -human family, offended deity, and that the consequence of this offence -was the condemnation to death, after a life of sorrow, of the entire -race. On the other side of the picture is portrayed the love of God, who -sent his only beloved son to die--and by his death procuring for all -eternal life--to save the remnant of humanity from the further vengeance -of their all-merciful heavenly father. The religion of Christ finds its -source in the forbidden fruit of the yet undiscovered Garden of Eden. - -Adam's sin is the corner-stone of Christianity, the keystone of the -arch. Without the fall there is no redeemer, for there is no fallen one -to be redeemed. It is, then, to the history of Adam that the critical -examinant of the Atonement theory should first direct his attention. But -to try the doctrine of the Atonement by the aid of science would be -fatal to religion. As for the one man Adam, - -6,000 years ago the first of the human race, his existence is not only -unvouched for by science, but is actually questioned by the timid, and -repudiated by the bolder, exponents of modern ethnology. The human race -is traced back far beyond the period fixed for Adam's sin. Egypt and -India speak for humanity busy with wars, rival dynasties, and religions, -long prior to the date given for the garden scene in Eden. - -The fall of Adam could not have brought sin upon mankind, and death by -sin, if hosts of men and women so lived and died ages before the words -"thou shalt surely die" were spoken by God to man. - -Nor could all men inherit Adam's misfortune if it be true that it is not -to one but to many centres of origin that we ought to trace back the -various races of mankind. - -The theologian who finds no evidence of death prior to the offence -shared by Adam and Eve is laughed to scorn by the geologist, who points -to the innumerable petrifactions in the earth's strata, which with a -million tongues declare, more potently than loudest speech, that myriads -of myriads of living things ceased their life-struggle incalculable ages -before man's era on our world. - -Science has so little to offer in support of any religious doctrine, and -so much to advance against all purely theologic tenets, that we turn to -a point giving the Christian greater vantage ground, and accepting for -the moment his scriptures as our guide, we deny that he can maintain the -possibility of Adam's sin, and yet consistently affirm the existence of -an all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good God. Did Adam sin? We take the -Christian's Bible in our hands to answer the question, first defining -the word sin. What is sin? Samuel Taylor Coleridge says: "A sin is an -evil which has its ground or origin in the agent, and not in the -compulsion of circumstances. Circumstances are compulsory from the -absence of a power to resist or control them, and if this absence be -likewise the effect of circumstances (that is, if it have been neither -directly nor indirectly caused by the agent himself) the evil derived -from the circumstance, and therefore such evil is not sin, and the -person who suffers it, or is the compelled actor or instrument of its -infliction on others, may feel regret, but not remorse. Let us -generalise the word circumstance so as to understand by it all and -everything not connected with the will.... Even though it were the warm -blood circulating in the chambers of the heart or man's most inmost -sensations, we regard them as circumstantial, extrinsic, or from -without.... An act to be sin must be original, and a state or act that -has not its origin in the will may be calamity, deformity, or disease, -but sin it cannot be. It is not enough that the act appears so -voluntary, or that it has the most hateful passions or debasing appetite -for its proximate cause and accompaniment. All these may be found in a -madhouse, where neither law nor humanity permit us to condemn the actor -of sin. The reason of law declared the maniac not a free agent, and the -verdict followed of course, _not guilty_." Did Adam sin? - -The Bible story is that a Deity created one man and one woman; that he -placed them in a garden wherein he had also placed a tree, which was -good for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make -one wise. That although he had expressly given the fruit of every tree -bearing seed for food, he, nevertheless, commanded them not to eat of -the fruit of this specially attractive tree under penalty of death. -Supposing Adam to have at once disobeyed this injunction, would it have -been sin? The fact that God had made the tree good for food, pleasant to -the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, should have surely -been sufficient justification. The God-created inducement to partake of -its fruit was strong and ever operative. The inhibition lost its value -as against the enticement. If the All-wise had intended the tree to be -avoided, would he have made its allurements so overpowering to the -senses? But the case does not rest here. In addition to all the -attractions of the tree, and as though there were not enough, there is a -subtle serpent gifted with suasive speech, who, either wiser or more -truthful than the All-perfect Deity, says that although God has -threatened immediate death as the consequence of disobedience to his -command, yet they "shall not die; for God doth know that in the day ye -eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing -good and evil." The tempter is stronger than the tempted, the witchery -of the serpent is too great for the spell-bound woman, the decoy tree is -too potent in its temptations; overpersuaded herself by the -honey-tongued voice of the seducer, she plucks the fruit and gives to -her husband also. And for this giving way to a God-designed temptation -their offspring are to suffer God's eternal, unforgiving wrath! The yet -unborn children are to be the victims of God's vengeance on their -parents' weakness--though he had made them weak; had created the tempter -sufficiently strong to practise upon this weakness; and had arranged the -causes, predisposing man and woman to commit the offence--if indeed it -be an offence to pluck the fruit of a tree which gives knowledge to the -eater. It is for this fall that Jesus is to atone. He is sacrificed to -redeem the world's inhabitants from the penalties for a weakness (for -sin it was not) they had no share in. It was not sin; for the man was -influenced by circumstances prearranged by Deity, and which man was -powerless to resist or control. But if the man was so influenced by such -circumstances, it was God who influenced the man--the God who punished -the human race for an action to the commission of which he impelled -their progenitor. - -Adam did not sin. He ate of the fruit of a tree which God had made good -to be eaten. He was induced to this through the indirect persuasion of a -serpent God had made for the very purpose of persuading him. But even if -Adam did sin, and even if he and Eve, his wife, were the first parents -of the whole human family, what have we to do with their sin? We, unborn -when the act was committed, and without choice as to coming into this -world amongst the myriad worlds which roll in the vast expanse of solar -and astral systems. Why should Jesus atone for Adam's sin? Adam suffered -for his own offence; he, according to the curse, was to eat in sorrow of -the fruit of the earth all his life as punishment for his offence. -Atonement, after punishment, is surely a superfluity. Or was the -atonement only for those who needed no atonement, having no part in the -offence? Did the sacrifice of Jesus serve as atonement for the whole -world, and, if yes, for all sin, or for Adam's sin only? If the -atonement is for the whole world, does it extend to unbelievers as well -as to believers in the efficacy? if it only includes believers, then -what has become of those generations who, according to the Bible, for -4,000 years succeeded each other in the world without faith in Christ -because without knowledge of his mission? Should not Jesus have come -4,000 years earlier, or, at least, should he not have come when the Ark -grounded on Ararat served as monument of God's merciless vengeance, -which had made the whole earth like to a battle field, whereon the -omnipotent had crushed the feeble, and had marked his prowess by the -innumerable myriads of decaying dead? If it be declared that though the -atonement by Jesus only applies to believers in his mission so far as -regards human beings born since his coming, yet that it is wider in its -retrospective redeeming effect; then the answer is that it is unfair to -those born after Jesus to make faith the condition precedent to the -saving efficacy of atonement, especially if belief be required from all -mankind posterior to the Christian era, whether they have heard of Jesus -or not. Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Kaffirs, and others have surely a -right to complain of this atonement scheme, which ensures them eternal -damnation by making it requisite to believe in a Gospel of which they -have no knowledge. If it be contended that belief will only be required -from those to whom the Gospel of Jesus has been preached, and who have -had afforded to them the opportunity of its acceptance, then how great a -cause of complaint against Christian Missionaries have those peoples -who, without such missions, might have escaped damnation for unbelief. -The gates of hell are opened to them by the earnest propagandist, who -professes to show the road to heaven. - -But does this atonement serve only to redeem the human family from the -curse inflicted by Deity in Eden's garden for Adam's sin, or does it -operate as satisfaction for all sin? If the salvation is from the -punishment for Adam's sin alone, and if belief and baptism are, as Jesus -himself affirms, to be the conditions precedent to any saving efficacy -in the much-lauded atonement by the son of God, then what becomes of a -child that only lives a few hours, is never baptised, and never having -any mind, consequently never has any belief? Or what becomes of one -idiot-born who, throughout his dreary life, never has mental capacity -for the acceptance or examination of, or credence in any religious -dogmas whatever? Is the idiot saved who cannot believe? Is the infant -saved who cannot believe? I, with some mental faculties tolerably -developed, cannot believe. Must I be damned? If so, fortunate -short-lived babe! lucky idiot! That the atonement should not be -effective until the person to be saved has been baptised, that the -sprinkling of a few drops of water should quench the flames of hell, is -a remarkable feature in the Christian's creed: - - "One can't but think it somewhat droll, - Pump-water thus should cleanse a soul." - -How many fierce quarrels have raged on the formula of baptism amongst -those loving brothers in Christ who believe he died for them! How -strange an idea that, though God has been crucified to redeem mankind, -it yet needs the font of water to wash away the lingering stain of -Adam's crime. - -One minister of the Church of England, occupying the presidential chair -of a well-known training college for Church clergymen in the North of -England, seriously declared, in the presence of a large auditory and of -several church dignitaries, that the sin of Adam was so potent in its -effect, that if a man _had never been born, he would yet have been -damned for sin_. That is, he declared that man existed before birth, and -that he committed sin before he was born; and if never born, would -notwithstanding deserve to suffer eternal torment for that sin. - -It is almost impossible to discuss seriously a doctrine so monstrously -absurd, and yet it is not one whit more ridiculous than the ordinary -orthodox and terrible doctrine, that God the undying, in his infinite -love, killed himself under the form of his son to appease the cruel -vengeance of God, the just and merciful, who, without this, would have -been ever vengeful, unjust, and merciless. - -The atonement theory, as presented to us by the Bible, is in effect as -follows:--God created man surrounded by such conditions as the divine -mind chose, in the selection of which man had no voice, and the effects -of which on man were all foreknown and predestined by Deity. The result -was man's fall on the very first temptation, so frail the nature with -which he was endowed, or so powerful the temptation to which he was -subjected. For this fall not only did the all-merciful punish Adam, but -also his posterity; and this punishing went on for many centuries, until -God, the immutable, changed his purpose of continual condemnation of men -for sins they had no share in, and was wearied with his long series of -unjust judgments on those whom he created in order that he might judge -them. That, then, God sent his son, who was himself and was also his own -father, and who was immortal, to die upon the cross, and, by this -sacrifice, to atone for the sin which God himself had caused Adam to -commit, and thus to appease the merciless vengeance of the All-merciful, -which would otherwise have been continued against men yet unborn for an -offence they could not have been concerned in or accessory to. Whether -those who had died before Christ's coming are redeemed, the Bible does -not clearly tell us. Those born after are redeemed only on condition of -their faith in the efficacy of the sacrifice offered, and in the truth -of the history of Jesus's life. The doctrine of salvation by sacrifice -of human life is the doctrine of a barbarous and superstitious age: the -outgrowth of a brutal and depraved era. The God who accepts the bloody -offering of an innocent victim in lieu of punishing the guilty culprit -shows no mercy in sparing the offender: he has already satiated his lust -for vengeance on the first object presented to him. - -Sacrifice is an early, prominent, and with slight exception an abiding -feature in the Hebrew record--sacrifice of life finds appreciative -acceptance from the Jewish Deity. Cain's offering of fruits is -ineffective, but Abel's altar, bearing the firstlings of his flock and -the fat thereof, finds respect in the sight of the Lord. While the face -of the earth was disfigured by the rotting dead after God in his -infinite mercy had deluged the world, then it was that the ascending -smoke from Noah's burnt sacrifice of bird and beast produced pleasure in -heaven, and God himself smelled a sweet savor from the roasted meats. To -preach atonement for the past by sacrifice is worse than folly--it is -crime. The past can never be recalled, and the only reference to it -should be that, by marking its events, we may avoid its evil deeds and -improve upon its good ones. The Levitical doctrine of the atonement, -with its sin laden scapegoat sent into the wilderness to the evil demon -Azazel, though placed in the Pentateuch, is of much later date, being -one of the myths acquired by the Jews during their captivity. The -general notion of atonement by sacrifice is that of an averting of the -just judgment by an offering which may induce the judge, who in this -case is also the executioner, to delay or remit the punishment he has -awarded. In the gospel atonement story the weird folly of the scapegoat -mystery and the barbarous waste of doves, pigeons, rams, and bulls as -burnt offerings are all outdone. We have in lieu of these the history of -the Man-God subject to human passions and infirmities, who comes to die, -and who prays to his heavenly father--that is, to himself--that he will -spare him the bitter cup of death; who is betrayed, having himself, ere -he laid the foundations of the world, predestined Judas to betray him; -and who dies, being God immortal, crying with his almost dying -breath--"My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?" - - - - -WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN? - - -AN ANSWER TO THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY - -PREFATORY NOTE TO FOURTH EDITION - -SINCE this pamphlet was originally penned in 1867, the author of -"Supernatural Religion" has in his three volumes placed a very -storehouse of information within the easy reach of every student, and -many of Dr. Tischendorf's reckless statements have been effectively -dealt with in that masterly work. In the present brief pamphlet there is -only the very merest index to matters which in "Supernatural Religion" -are exhaustively treated. Part II of "The Freethinkers' Text-Book," by -Mrs Besant, has travelled over the same ground with much care, and has -given exact reference to authorities on each point. - -THE Religious Tract Society, some time since, issued, prefaced with -their high commendation, a translation of a pamphlet by Dr. Constantine -Tischendorf, entitled "When were our Gospels Written?" In the -introductory preface we are not unfairly told that "on the credibility -of the four Gospels the whole of Christianity rests, as a building on -its foundations." It is proposed in this brief essay to deal with the -character of Dr. Tischendorf's advocacy, then to examine the genuineness -of the four Gospels, as affirmed by the Religious Tract Society's -pamphlet, and at the same time to ascertain, so far as is possible in -the space, how far the Gospel narrative is credible. - -The Religious Tract Society state that Dr. Teschendorf's _brochure_ is a -repetition of "arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of the -four Gospels," which the erudite Doctor had previously published for the -learned classes, "with explanations" now given in addition, to render -the arguments "intelligible" to meaner capacities; and as the "Infidel" -and "Deist" are especially referred to as likely to be overthrown by -this pamphlet, we may presume that the society considers that in the 119 -pages--which the translated essay occupies--they have presented the best -paper that can be issued on their behalf for popular reading on this -question. The praise accorded by the society, and sundry laudations -appropriated with much modesty in his own preface by Dr. Constantine -Tischendorf to himself, compel one at the outset to regard the Christian -manifesto as a most formidable production. The Society's translator -impressively tells us that the pamphlet has been three times printed in -Germany and twice in France; that it has been issued in Dutch and -Russian, and is done into Italian by an Archbishop with the actual -approbation of the Pope. The author's preface adds an account of his -great journeyings and heavy travelling expenses incurred out of an -original capital of a "few unpaid bills," ending in the discovery of a -basketful of old parchments destined for the flames by the Christian -monks in charge, but which from the hands of Dr. Tischendorf are used by -the Religious Tract Society to neutralise all doubts, and to "blow to -pieces" the Rationalistic criticism of Germany and the coarser -Infidelity of England. Doubtless Dr. Tischendorf and the Society -consider it some evidence in favor of the genuineness and authenticity -of the four Gospels that the learned Doctor was enabled to spend 5,000 -dollars out of less than nothing, and that the Pope regards his pamphlet -with favor, or they would not trouble to print such statements. We -frankly accord them the full advantage of any argument which may fairly -be based on such facts. An autograph letter of endorsement by the Pope -is certainly a matter which a Protestant Tract Society--who regard "the -scarlet whore at Babylon" with horror--may well be proud of. - -Dr. Tischendorf states that he has since 1839 devoted himself to the -textual study of the New Testament, and it ought to be interesting to -the orthodox to know that, as a result of twenty-seven years' labor, he -now declares that "it has been placed beyond doubt that the original -text... had in many places undergone such serious modifications of -meaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the apostles -had actually written," and that "the right course to take" "is to set -aside the received text altogether and to construct a fresh text." - -This is pleasant news for the true believer, promulgated by authority of -the managers of the great Christian depot in Paternoster Row, from -whence many scores of thousands of copies of this incorrect received -text have nevertheless been issued without comment to the public, even -since the society have published in English Dr. Tischendorf s -declaration of its unreliable character. - -With the modesty and honorable reticence peculiar to great men, Dr. -Tischendorf records his successes in reading hitherto unreadable -parchments, and we learn that he has received approval from "several -learned bodies, and even from crowned heads," for his wonderful -performances. As a consistent Christian, who knows that the "powers that -be are ordained of God," our "critic without rival," for so he prints -himself, regards the praise of crowned heads as higher in degree than -that of learned bodies. - -The Doctor discovered in 1844 the MS on which he now relies to confute -audacious Infidelity, in the Convent of St. Catherine at Sinai; he -brought away a portion, and handed that portion, on his return, to the -Saxon Government--they paying all expenses. The Doctor, however, did not -then divulge where he had found the MS. It was for the advantage of -humankind that the place should be known at once, for, at least, two -reasons. First, because by aid of the remainder of this MS--"the most -precious Bible treasure in existence"--the faulty text of the New -Testament was to be reconstructed; and the sooner the work was done the -better for believers in Christianity. And, secondly, the whole story of -the discovery might then have been more easily confirmed in every -particular. - -For fifteen years, at least, Dr. Tischendorf hid from the world the -precise locality in which his treasure had been discovered. Nay, he was -even fearful when he knew that other Christians were trying to find the -true text, and he experienced "peculiar satisfaction" when he -ascertained that his silence had misled some pious searchers after -reliable copies of God's message to all humankind; although all this -time he was well aware that our received copies of God's revelation had -undergone "serious modifications" since the message had been delivered -from the Holy Ghost by means of the Evangelists. - -In 1853, "nine years after the original discovery," Dr. Tisch-endorf -again visited the Sinai convent, but although he had "enjoined on the -monks to take religious care" of the remains of which they, on the -former occasion, would not yield up possession, he, on this second -occasion, and apparently after careful search, discovered "eleven short -lines," which convinced him that the greater part of the MS had been -destroyed. He still, however, kept the place secret, although he had no -longer any known reason for so doing; and, having obtained an advance of -funds from the Russian Government, he, in 1859, tried a third time for -his "pearl of St. Catherine," which, in 1853, he felt convinced had been -destroyed, and as to which he had nevertheless, in the meantime, been -troubled by fears that the good cause might be aided by some other than -Dr. Tischendorf discovering and publishing the "priceless treasure," -which, according to his previous statements, he must have felt convinced -did not longer exist. On this third journey the Doctor discovered "the -very fragments which, fifteen years before, he had taken out of the -basket," "and also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament -complete, and, in addition, Barnabas and part of Hermas." - -With wonderful preciseness, and with great audacity, Dr. Tischendorf -_refers_ the transcription of the discovered Bible to the first half of -the fourth century. Have Dr. Tischendorf's patrons here ever read of MSS -discovered in the same Convent of St. Catherine, at Sinai, of which an -account was published by Dr. Constantine Simonides, and concerning which -the _Westminster Review_ said, "We share the suspicions, to use the -gentlest word which occurs to us, entertained, we believe, by all -competent critics and antiquarians." - -In 1863 Dr. Tischendorf published, at the cost of the Russian Emperor, a -splendid but very costly edition of his Sinaitic MS in columns, with a -Latin introduction. The book is an expensive one, and copies of it are -not very plentiful in England. Perhaps the Religious Tract Society have -not contributed to its circulation so liberally as did the pious Emperor -of all the Russias. Surely a text on which our own is to be -re-constructed ought to be in the hands at least of every English -clergyman and Young Men's Christian Association. - -"Christianity," writes Dr. Tischendorf, "does not, strictly speaking, -rest on the moral teaching of Jesus;" "it rests on his person only." "If -we are in error in believing in the person of Christ as taught in the -Gospels, then the Church herself is in error, and must be given up as a -deception." "All the world knows that our Gospels are nothing else than -biographies of Christ." "We have no other source of information with -respect to the life of Jesus." - -So that, according to the Religious Tract Society and its advocate, if -the credibility of the Gospel biography be successfully impugned, then -the foundations of Christianity are destroyed. It becomes, therefore, of -the highest importance to show that the biography of Jesus, as given in -the four Gospels, is absolutely incredible and self-contradictory. - -It is alleged in the Society's preface that all the objections of -infidelity have been hitherto unavailing. This is, however, not true. It -is rather the fact that the advocates of Christianity when defeated on -one point have shuffled to another, either quietly passing the topic -without further debate, or loudly declaring that the point abandoned was -really so utterly unimportant that it was extremely foolish in the -assailant to regard it as worthy attack, and that, in any case, all the -arguments had been repeatedly refuted by previous writers. - -To the following objections to the Gospel narrative the writer refuses -to accept as answer, that they have been previously discussed and -disposed of. - -The Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popularly associated -with each do not tell us the hour, or the day, or the month, or--save -Luke--the year, in which Jesus was born. The only point on which the -critical divines, who have preceded Dr. Tischendorf, generally agree is, -that Jesus was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology, -collated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us a period -of more than seven years within which to place the date. So confused is -the story as to the time of the birth, that while Matthew would make -Jesus born in the lifetime of Herod, Luke would fix the period of -Jesus's birth as after Herod's death. - -Christmas itself is a day surrounded with curious ceremonies of pagan -origin, and in no way serving to fix the 25th December as the natal day. -Yet the exact period at which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the -world to redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of Adam's -ancient sin, should be of some importance. - -Nor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of Christ. The -Jews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus, reproached him that he -ought to have been born at Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of -Nazareth. Jesus never appears to have said to either, "I was born at -Bethlehem." In Matthew ii, 6, we find a quotation from the prophet: "And -thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least amongst the -princes of Juda, for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule -my people-Israel." Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem, and -Luke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child to Bethlehem -for that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is done to fulfil a prophecy. -Micah v, 2, the only place in which similar words occur, is not a -prophecy referring to Jesus at all. The words are: "But thou Bethlehem -Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of -thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose -goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This is not -quoted correctly in Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining of -language to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on which -Christianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in default of -contemporary corroboration. The difficulties are not lessened in tracing -the parentage. In Matthew i, - -17, it is stated that "the generations from Abraham to David are -fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into -Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into -Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Why has Matthew made such -a mistake in his computation of the genealogies--in the last division we -have only thirteen names instead of fourteen, even including the name of -Jesus? Is this one of the cases of "painful uncertainty" which has -induced the Religious Tract Society and Dr. Tischendorf to wish to set -aside the _textus receptus_ altogether? - -From David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament twenty -generations; in Matthew, seventeen generations; and in Luke, -twenty-three generations. In Matthew from David to Christ there are -twenty-eight generations, and in Luke from David to Christ forty-three -generations. Yet, according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the -credibility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history that the -foundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy in the first Gospel -arriving at David traces to Jesus through Solomon; the third Gospel from -David traces through Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are -Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old -Testament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah, whom I presume -to be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd Chronicles xxii, 11, we find one -Joash, who is not mentioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in -Matthew is correct, why is the name not mentioned? Amaziah is mentioned -in chap. xxiv, v. 27, and in chap. xxvi, v. 1, Uzziah, neither of whom -[is] mentioned in Matthew, where Ozias is named as begetting Jotham, -when in fact three generations of men have come in between. In Matthew -and Luke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel, while in 1 -Chronicles iii, 17-19, Zerubbabel is stated to be the son of Pedaiah, -the brother of Salathiel. Matthew says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel -(chap. i, v. 13). Luke iii, 27, says Zorobabel's son was Rhesa. The Old -Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshullam, and Hananiah, and -Shelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii, 19), as the names of -Zorobabel's children. Is this another piece of evidence in favor of Dr. -Tischendorfs admirable doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct the -text? - -In the genealogies of Matthew and Luke there are only three names -agreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel, Zorobabel, and -Joseph--all the rest are utterly different. The attempts at explanation -which have been hitherto offered, in order to reconcile these -genealogies, are scarcely creditable to the intellects of the Christian -apologists. They allege that "Joseph, who by nature was the son of -Jacob, in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob -were brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who was the elder, dying -without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow; in -consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the -son of Heli." This is pure invention to get over a difficulty--an -invention not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you suppose -that these two persons were brothers, then unless you invent a death of -the mother's last husband and the widow's remarriage Jacob and Heli -would be the sons of the same father, and the list of the ancestors -should be identical in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty -the pious do this. They say, although brothers, they were only -half-brothers; although sons of the same mother, they were not sons of -the same father, but had different fathers. If so, how is it that -Salathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and son in both genealogies? -Another fashion of accounting for the contradiction is to give one as -the genealogy of Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. "Which?" -"Luke," it is said. Why Luke? what are Luke's words? Luke speaks of -Jesus being, "as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of -Heli." When Luke says Joseph, the son of Heli, [does] he mean Mary, the -daughter of Heli? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another? -because if that argument is worth anything, then in every case where a -man has a theory which disagrees with the text, he may say the text -means something else. If this argument be permitted we must abandon in -Scriptural criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to -convey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant daughter, why does -the same word mean son in every other case all through the remainder of -the genealogy? And if the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and -the genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have any point -of agreement at all until brought to David. They, nevertheless, do agree -and contradict each other in several places, destroying the probability -of their being intended as distinct genealogies. There is some evidence -that Luke does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself. We -are told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered because he was of -the house of David: if it had been Mary it would have surely said so. As -according to the Christian theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus, -it is not unfair to ask how it can be credible that Jesus's genealogy -could be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph? - -So far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to which the -genealogy relates) her cousinship to Elizabeth would make her rather -appear to belong to the tribe of Levi. - -To discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and birth would -be to insult the human understanding. The mythologies of Greece, Italy, -and India, give many precedents of sons of Gods miraculously born. -Italy, Greece, and India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The -incarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ. A miraculous -birth would be scouted today as monstrous; antedate it 2,000 years and -we worship it as miracle. - -Matt. i, 22, 23, says: "Now all this was done, that it might be -fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a -virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall -call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." This -is supposed to be a quotation from Isaiah vii, 14-16: "Therefore the -Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and -bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he -eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For -before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the -land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings." - -But in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate quotation, the -very words are omitted which would show its utter inapplicability to -Jesus. Even in those which are given, the agreement is not complete. -Jesus was not called Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a -virgin, this does not help the identity, as the word OLME in Isaiah, -rendered "virgin" in our version, does not convey the notion of -virginity, for which the proper word is BeThULE; OLME is used of a -youthful spouse recently married. The allusion to the land being -forsaken of both her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the -passage is prophetic of Jesus. - -The story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one Gospel, to Mary in -the other, is hardly credible on any explanation. If you assume the -annunciations as made by a God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should, -at least, have been to prevent doubt of Mary's chastity; but the -annunciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by Joseph. -Two annunciations are made, one of them in a dream to Joseph, when he is -suspicious as to the state of his betrothed wife; the other made by the -angel Gabriel (whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who -apparently conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although -with child not by her intended husband. The statement--that Mary being -found with child by the Holy Ghost, her husband, not willing to make her -a public example, was minded to put her away privily--is quite -incredible. If Joseph found her with child _by the Holy Ghost_, how -could he even think of making a public example of her shame when there -was nothing of which she could be ashamed--nothing, if he believed in -the Holy Ghost, of which he need have been ashamed himself, nothing -which need have induced him to wish to put her away privily. It is -clear--according to Matthew--that Mary was found with child, and that -the Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined by Joseph until after he -had dreamed about the matter. - -Although the birth of Jesus was specially announced by an angel, and -although Mary sang a joyful song consequent on the annunciation, -corroborated by her cousin's greeting, yet when Simeon speaks of the -child, in terms less extraordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it -and do not understand it. Why were they surprised? Is it credible that -so little regard was paid to the miraculous annunciation? Or is this -another case of the "painful uncertainty" alluded to by Dr. Teschendorf? - -Again, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in the temple, and he -says, "Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?" they do -not know what he means, so that either what the angel had said had been -of little effect, or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can any -reliance be placed on a narrative so contradictory? An angel was -specially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be born is the -Son of God, and yet that mother is astonished when her son says, "Wist -ye not I must be about my father's business?" - -The birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made publicly known by -means of certain wise men. These men saw his star in the East, but it -did not tell them much, for they were obliged to come and ask -information from Herod the King. Is astrology credible? Herod inquired -of the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right, -if he said, "The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by -their means," for these chief priests misquoted to suit their purposes, -and invented a false prophecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a -few words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after they -knew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went before them, -until it came and stood over where the young child was. The credibility -of this will be better understood if the reader notice some star, and -then see how many houses it will be over. Luke does not seem to have -been aware of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells -some shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adventure does not -appear to have happened in the reign of Herod at all. Is it credible -that Jesus was born twice? After the wise men had left Jesus, an angel -warned Joseph to flee with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly, -and remained there with the young child and his mother until the death -of Herod; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a prophecy. On -referring to Hosea xi, 1, - -we find the words have no reference whatever to Jesus, and that, -therefore, either the tale of the flight is invented as a fulfilment of -the prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support the tale of the -flight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at all in his childhood. -Directly after the birth of the child his parents instead of flying away -because of persecution into Egypt, went peacefully up to Jerusalem to -fulfil all things according to the law, returned thence to Nazareth, and -apparently dwelt there, going up to Jerusalem every year until Jesus was -twelve years of age. - -In Matthew ii, 15, we are told that Jesus remained in Egypt, "That it -might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying, -Out of Egypt have I called my son." In Hosea ii, 1, we read, "When -Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt." -In no other prophet is there any similar text. This not only is not a -prophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference to the Jewish -Exodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manufactured to give an air of -credibility to the Gospel history, or how will the Religious Tract -Society explain it? The Gospel writings betray either a want of good -faith, or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the mode -adopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testament? - -When Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptised by John -in the river Jordan. John, who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade -him directly he saw him; but, according to the writer of the fourth -Gospel, he knew him not, and had, therefore, no occasion to forbid him. -God is an "invisible" "spirit," whom no man hath seen (John i, 18), or -can see (Exodus xxxiii, 20); but the man John saw the spirit of God -descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at that time was in -heaven, from whence he said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well -pleased." Although John heard this from God's own mouth, he some time -after sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really -the Christ (Matthew xi, 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility of this -story, says Dr. Teschendorf, that Christianity rests like a building on -its foundations. - -It is utterly impossible John could have known and not have known Jesus -at the same time. And if, as the New Testament states, God is infinite -and invisible, it is incredible that as Jesus stood in the river to be -baptised, the Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove, -and that God from heaven said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am -well pleased." Was the indivisible and invisible spirit of God separated -in three distinct and two separately visible persons? How do the -Religious Tract Society reconcile this with the Athanasian Creed? - -The baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the language used as to -John, who baptised Jesus. It is said, "This is he that was spoken of by -the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness, -prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." Isaiah xl, -1-5, is, "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye -comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is -accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of -the Lord's hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in -the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the -desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every -mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made -straight, and the rough places plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be -revealed." These verses have not the most remote relation to John? And -this manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of bolstering up a tale, -serves to prove that the writer of the Gospel tries by these to impart -an air of credibility to an otherwise incredible story. - -Immediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the Spirit into the -wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There he fasts forty days and -forty nights. - -John says, in chapter i, 35, "Again, the next day after, John stood and -two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said, -behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they -followed Jesus." Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, "The day following -Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto -him, follow me." And in chapter ii, 1, he says, "And the third day there -was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there; -and both Jesus was called and his disciples unto the marriage." -According to Matthew, there can be no doubt that immediately after the -baptism Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And -we are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil and fasting in the -wilderness, and at the same time feasting at a marriage in Cana of -Galilee? Is it possible to believe that Jesus actually did fast forty -days and forty nights? If Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man, in -what capacity did he fast? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast -would be a mockery; and the account that he became a hungered must be -wrong. It is barely possible that in some very abnormal condition or -cataleptic state, or state of trance, a man might exist, with very -slight nourishment or without food, but that a man could walk about, -speak, and act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food -is simply an impossibility. - -Is the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible? If Jesus be God, can -the Devil tempt God? A clergyman of the Church of England writing on -this says: "That the Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is -certainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more remote age, -have appeared among the sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to -torment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and -literally through the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then -to the topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable, it is an -insult to our understanding, and an affront to our great creator and -redeemer." Supposing, despite the monstrosity of such a supposition, an -actual Devil--and this involves the dilemma that the Devil must either -be God-created, or God's co-eternal rival; the first supposition being -inconsistent with God's goodness, and the second being inconsistent with -his power; but supposing such a Devil, is it credible that the Devil -should tempt the Almighty maker of the universe with "all these will I -give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me?" - -In the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an uncertainty as to -one, whose name was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is in -Matthew x, 3, alone that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned, -thus--"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus." We are told, on this -point, by certain Biblicists, that some early MSS have not the words -"whose surname was Thaddaeus," and that these words have probably been -inserted to reconcile the Gospel according to Matthew with that -attributed to Mark. In the English version of the Rheims Testament used -in this country by our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation -between Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words "Lebbaeus -whose surname was," leaving only the name "Thaddaeus" in Matthew's text. -The revised version of the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims -version, and the omission will probably meet with the entire concurrence -of Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society, now they boast -autograph letters of approval from the infallible head of the Catholic -Church. If Matthew x, 3, and Mark iii, - -18, be passed as reconciled, although the first calls the twelfth -disciple Lebbaeus, and the second gives him the name Thaddaeus; there is -yet the difficulty that in Luke vi, 16, corroborated by John xiv, 22, -there is a disciple spoken of as "Judas, not Iscariot," "Judas, the -brother of James." Commentators have endeavored to clear away this last -difficulty by declaring that Thaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the -same meaning as Judas. This has been answered by the objection that if -Matthew's Gospel uses Thad-daeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to -speak of Thaddaeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further -objected also that while there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew -original for the Gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the -slightest pretence for alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. The -Gospels also leave us in some doubt as to whether Matthew is Levi, or -whether Matthew and Levi are two different persons. - -The account of the calling of Peter is replete with contradictions. -According to Matthew, when Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a -vessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of -Galilee. Jesus walking by the sea said to them-- - -"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." The two brothers did -so, and they became Christ's disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one -was with him but his brother Andrew. A little further on, the two sons -of Zebedee were in a ship with their father mending nets, and these -latter were separately called. From John, we learn that Andrew was -originally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first -saw Jesus, Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter who, -if fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him "we have found -the Messiah," and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said, -"Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." There -is no mention in John of the sons of Zebedee being a little further on, -or of any fishing in the sea of Galilee. This call is clearly on land. -Luke's Gospel states that when the call took place, Jesus and Peter were -both at sea. Jesus had been preaching to the people, who pressing upon -him, he got into Simon's ship, from which he preached. After this he -directed Simon to put out into the deep and let down the nets. Simon -answered, "Master, we have toiled all night and taken nothing; -nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net." No sooner was this -done, than the net was filled to breaking, and Simon's partners, the two -sons of Zebedee, came to help, when at the call of Jesus, they brought -their ships to land, and followed him. - -Is it credible that there were three several calls, or that the Gospels -being inspired, you could have three contradictory versions of the same -event? Has the story been here "painfully modified," or how do Dr. -Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it -credible that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon's house, and -cured Simon's wife's mother, before the call of Simon, but did not go to -Simon's house for that purpose, until after the call of Simon, as -related in Matthew? It is useless to reply that the date of Jesus's -visit is utterly unimportant, when we are told that it is upon the -credibility of the complete narrative that Christianity must rest. Each -stone is important to the building, and it is not competent for the -Christian advocate to regard as useless any word which the Holy Ghost -has considered important enough to reveal. - -Are the miracle stories credible? Every ancient nation has had its -miracle workers, but modern science has relegated all miracle history to -realms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion, or fraud. Can Christian -miracles be made, the exceptions? Is it likely that the nations amongst -whom the dead were restored to life would have persistently ignored the -author of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if intended -to convince the Jews, was God unable to render his intentions effective? -That five thousand persons should be fed with five loaves and two -fishes, and that an apparent excess should remain beyond the original -stock, is difficult to believe; but that shortly after this--Jesus -having to again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons--his -own disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder from whence the -food was to be derived, is certainly startlingly incredible. If this -exhibition of incredulity were pardonable on the part of the twelve -apostles, living witnesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable -the unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract Society -seek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events all contrary to -probability, and with nineteen centuries intervening. - -The casting out the devils presents phaenomena requiring considerable -credulity, especially the story of the devils and the swine. To-day -insanity is never referable to demoniacal possession, but eighteen -hundred years ago the subject of lunacy had not been so patiently -investigated as it has been since. That one man could now be tenanted by -several devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the -present generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the repudiation -of its present possibility can hardly be consistent with implicit -credence in its ancient history. That the devils and God should hold -converse together, although not without parallel in the book of Job, is -inconsistent with the theory of an infinitely good Deity; that the -devils should address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be -allowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous; yet all this -helps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf relies. That -Jesus being God should pray to his Father that "the cup might pass from" -him is so incredible that even the faithful ask us to regard it as -mystery. That an angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty -God, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so prominently preached -to thousands, the priests should need any one like Judas to betray the -founder of Christianity with a kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging -the dealers, his wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus's -daughter should have secured him, if not the nation's love, faith, and -admiration, at least a national reputation and notoriety. It is not -credible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a kiss that the latter should have -been arrested upon his own statement that he was Jesus. That Peter -should have had so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times -in a few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had remained -unconvinced by his personal intercourse with the incarnate Deity. The -mere blunders in the story of the denial sink into insignificance in -face of this major difficulty. Whether the cock did or did not crow -before the third denial, whether Peter was or was not in the same -apartment with Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively -trifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are based may -be the consequence of the errors which Dr. Tischendorf says have crept -into the sacred writings. - -Jesus said, "as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of -the whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the -heart of the earth." Jesus was crucified on Friday, was buried on Friday -evening, and yet the first who went to the grave on the night of -Saturday as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of Jesus -already gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three days and three nights in -the grave? Is there any proof that his body remained in the grave for -three hours? Who went first to the grave? was it Mary Magdalene alone, -as in John, or two Marys as in Matthew, or the two Marys and Salome as -in Mark, or the two Marys, Joanna, and several unnamed women as in Luke? -To whom did did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary -Magdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in Luke, or to the -two Marys near the sepulchre, as in Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish -and honeycomb by a dead God credible? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the -very day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly six weeks -intervene? - -Is this history credible, contained as it is in four contradictory -biographies, outside which biographies we have, as Dr. Tisch-endorf -admits, "no other source of information with respect to the life of -Jesus?" This history of an earth-born Deity, descended through a -crime-tainted ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through -one who was not his father; this history of an infinite God nursed as a -baby, growing through childhood to manhood like any frail specimen of -humanity; this history, garnished with bedevilled men, enchanted fig -tree, myriads of ghosts, and scores of miracles, and by such garnishment -made more akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history; this -picture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as man; -immutability subject to human passions and infirmities; the creator come -to die, yet wishing to escape the death which shall bring peace to his -God-tormented creatures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own -prayer; God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor; God the immortal -dying, and in the agony of the death-throes--stronger than the strong -man's will--crying with almost the last effort of his dying breath, that -he being God, is God forsaken! - -If all this be credible, what story is there any man need hesitate to -believe? - -Dr. Tischendorf asks how it has been possible to impugn the credibility -of the four Gospels, and replies that this has been done by denying that -the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. In the -preceding pages it has been shown that the credibility of the Gospel -narrative is impugned because it is uncorroborated by contemporary -history, because it is self-contradictory, and because many of its -incidents are _prima facie_ most improbable, and some of them utterly -impossible. Even English Infidels are quite prepared to admit that the -four Gospels may be quite anonymous; and yet, that their anonymous -character need be of no weight as an argument against their truth. All -that is urged on this head is that the advocates of the Gospel history -have sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise unreliable -narratives by a pretence that some of the Evangelists, at least, were -eyewitnesses of the events they refer to. Dr. Teschendorf says: "The -credibility of a writer clearly depends on the interval of time which -lies between him and the events which he describes. The farther the -narrator is removed from the facts which he lays before us the more his -claims to credibility are reduced in value." Presuming truthfulness in -intention for any writer, and his ability to comprehend the facts he is -narrating, and his freedom from a prejudice which may distort the -picture he intends to paint correctly with his pen: we might admit the -correctness of the passage we have quoted; but can these always be -presumed in the case of the authors of the Gospels? On the contrary, a -presumption in an exactly opposite direction may be fairly raised from -the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the Christian world -was flooded with forged testimonies in favor of the biography of Jesus, -or in favor of his disciples. - -A writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ observes: "To say nothing of such -acknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic constitutions and liturgies, and -the several spurious Gospels, the question of the genuineness of the -alleged remains of the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is -very material. Any genuine remains of the 'Apostle' Barnabas, of Hermas, -the contemporary (Romans xvi, 14), and Clement, the highly commended and -gifted fellow laborer of St. Paul (Phil, iv, 3), could scarcely be -regarded as less sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally -we know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the present day, -the critics best competent to determine it, have agreed in opinion, that -the extant writings ascribed to Barnabas and Hermas are wholly -spurious--the frauds of a later age. How much suspicion attaches to the -1st Epistle of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally -rejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times it has never -been allowed the place expressly assigned to it among the canonical -books prefixed to the celebrated Alexandrian MS, in which the only known -copy of it is included. It must not be forgotten that Ignatius expressly -lays claim to inspiration, that Irenaeus quotes Hermas as Scripture, and -Origen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in modestly -disclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles, clearly implies -there would have been no essential distinction in the way of his being -ranked in the same order. But the question is, how are these pretensions -substantiated?" So far the _Edinburgh Review_, certainly not an Infidel -publication. - -Eusebius, in his "Ecclesiastical History," admits the existence of many -spurious gospels and epistles, and some writings put forward by him as -genuine, such as the correspondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have -since been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from -this that many of the most early Christians considered the then existing -testimonies insufficient to prove the history of Jesus, and good reason -is certainly afforded for carefully examining the whole of the evidences -they have bequeathed us. - -On p. 48, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose writings belong to the -extreme end of the second century, as though that Bishop must be taken -as vouching the four Gospels as we now have them. Yet, if the testimony -of Irenaeus be reliable ("Against Heresies," Book III, cap. i.) the -Gospel attributed to Matthew was believed to have been composed in -Hebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a Messiah of the -royal line of David, Matthew having the same desire to a yet greater -degree, strove to give them full satisfaction. This may account for some -of the genealogical curiosities to which we have drawn attention, but -hardly renders Matthew's Gospel more reliable; and how can the -suggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Matthew penned the -first Gospel, which has only existed in Greek? Irenaeus, too, flatly -contradicts the Gospels by declaring that the ministry of Jesus extended -over ten years and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age ("Against -Heresies," Book II, cap. 22). - -If the statement of Irenaeus ("Against Heresies," Book III, cap. xi) -that the fourth Gospel was written to refute the errors of Cerinthus and -Nicolaus, have any value, then the actual date of issue of the fourth -Gospel will be considerably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf's -statement that Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is not -even supported by the quotation on which he relies. All that is said in -the passage quoted (Eusebius, "Ecc. Hist," Book V, cap. 20) is that -Irenaeus when he was a child heard Polycarp repeat from memory the -discourses of John and others concerning Jesus. If the Gospels had -existed in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy to -have read them from the MS as to repeat them from memory. Dr. -Tischendorf might also have added that the letter to Florinus, whence he -takes the passage on which he relies, exists only in the writings of -Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence -since abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says: "Any testimony of -Polycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back to the Evangelist -himself, for Polycarp, in speaking to Irenaeus of this Gospel as the -work of his master, St. John, must have learned from the lips of the -apostle himself, whether he was its author or not." Now, what evidence -is there that Polycarp ever said a single word as to the authorship of -the fourth Gospel, or of any Gospel, or that he even said that John had -penned a single word? In the Epistle to the Philippians (the only -writing attributed to Polycarp for which any genuine character is even -pretended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is there even a -single passage in the Epistle which can be identified with any passage -in the Gospel of John. - -Surely Dr. Tischendorf forgot, in the eager desire to make his witnesses -bear good testimony, that the highest duty of an advocate is to make the -truth clear, not to put forward a pleasantly colored falsehood to -deceive the ignorant. It is not even true that Irenaeus ever pretends -that Polycarp in any way vouched our fourth Gospel as having been -written by John, and yet Dr. Tischendorf had the cool audacity to say -"there is nothing more damaging to the doubters of the authenticity of -St. John's Gospel than this testimony of St. Polycarp." Do the Religious -Tract Society regard English Infidels as so utterly ignorant that they -thus intentionally seek to suggest a falsehood, or are the Council of -the Religious Tract Society themselves unable to test the accuracy of -the statements put forward on their behalf by the able decipherer of -illegible parchments? It is too much to suspect the renowned Dr. -Constantine Tischendorf of ignorance, yet even the coarse English -sceptic regrets that the only other alternative will be to denounce him -as a theological charlatan. - -Dr. Mosheim, writing on behalf of Christianity, says that the Epistle of -Polycarp to the Philippians is by some treated as genuine and by others -as spurious, and that it is no easy matter to decide. Many critics, of -no mean order, class it amongst the apostolic Christian forgeries, but -whether the Epistle be genuine or spurious, it contains no quotation -from, it makes no reference to, the Gospel of John. - -To what is said of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, it -is enough to note that all these are after A.D. 150. Irenaeus may be put -177 to 200, Tertullian about 193, and Clement of Alexandria as -commencing the third century. - -One of Dr. Tischendorf s most audacious flourishes is that (p. 49) with -reference to the Canon of Muratori, which we are told "enumerates the -books of the New Testament which, from the first, were considered -canonical and sacred," and which "was written a little after the age of -Pius I, about A.D. 170." - -First the anonymous fragment contains books which were never accepted as -canonical; next, it is quite impossible to say when or by whom it was -written or what was its original language. Mura-tori, who discovered the -fragment in 1740, conjectured that it was written about the end of the -second or beginning of the third century, but it is noteworthy that -neither Eusebius nor any other of the ecclesiastical advocates of the -third, fourth, or fifth centuries, ever refers to it. It may be the -compilation of any monk at any date prior to 1740, and is utterly -valueless as evidence. - -Dr. Tischendorfs style is well exemplified by the positive manner in -which he fixes the date A.D. 139 to the first apology of Justin, -although a critic so "learned" as the unrivalled Dr. Tischendorf could -not fail to be aware that more than one writer has supported the view -that the date of the first apology was not earlier than A.D. 145, and -others have contended for A.D. 150. The Benedictine editors of Justin's -works support the latter date. Dr. Kenn argues for A.D. 155-160. On page -63, the Religious Tract Society's champion appeals to the testimony of -Justin Martyr, but in order not to shock the devout while convincing the -profane, he omits to mention that more than half the writings once -attributed to Justin Martyr are now abandoned, as either of doubtful -character or actual forgeries, and that Justin's value as a witness is -considerably weakened by the fact that he quotes the acts of Pilate and -the Sybilline Oracles as though they were reliable evidence, when in -fact they are both admitted specimens of "a Christian forgery." But what -does Justin testify as to the Gospels? Does he say that Matthew, Mark, -Luke, and John were their writers? On the contrary, not only do the -names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never occur as Evangelists in the -writings of Justin, but he actually mentions facts and sayings as to -Jesus, which are not found in either of the four Gospels. The very words -rendered Gospels only occur where they are strongly suspected to be -interpolated, Justin usually speaking of some writings which he calls -"memorials" or "memoirs of the Apostles." - -Dr. Tischendorf urges that in the writings of Justin the Gospels are -placed side by side with the prophets, and that "this undoubtedly places -the Gospels in the list of canonical books." If this means that there is -any statement in Justin capable of being so construed, then Dr. -Tischendorf was untruthful. Justin does quote specifically the Sybilline -oracles, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He quotes statements as -to Jesus, which may be found in the apocryphal Gospels, and which are -not found in ours, so that if the evidence of Justin Martyr be taken, it -certainly does not tend to prove, even in the smallest degree, that four -Gospels were specially regarded with reverence in his day. The Rev. W. -Sanday thinks that Justin did not assign an exclusive authority to our -Gospels, and that he made use also of other documents no longer extant -("Gospels in 2nd Century," p. 117). - -On p. 94 it is stated that "as early as the time of Justin the -expression 'the Evangel' was applied to the four Gospels." This -statement by Dr. Tischendorf and its publication by the Religious Tract -Society call for the strongest condemnation. Nowhere in the writings of -Justin are the words "the Evangel" applied to the four Gospels. - -Lardner only professes to discover two instances in which the word -anglicised by Tischendorf as "Evangel," occurs; [--Greek--] and -[--Greek--] the second being expressly pointed out by Schleiermacher as -an interpolation, and as an instance in which a marginal note has been -incorporated with the text; nor would one occurrence of such a word -prove that any book or books were so known by Justin, as the word is -merely a compound of good and [--Greek--] message; nor is there the -slightest foundation for the statement that in the time of Justin the -word Evangel was ever applied to designate the four Gospels now -attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. - -Dr. Tischendorf (p. 46) admits that the "faith of the Church... would be -seriously compromised" if we do not find references to the Gospels in -writings between A.D. 100 and A.D. 150; and--while he does not directly -assert--he insinuates that in such writings the Gospels were "treated -with the greatest respect," or "even already treated as canonical and -sacred writings;" and he distinctly affirms that the Gospels "did see -the light" during the "Apostolic age," "and before the middle of the -second" century "our Gospels were held in the highest respect by the -Church," although for the affirmation, he neither has nor advances the -shadow of evidence. - -The phrases, "Apostolic age" and "Apostolic fathers" denote the first -century of the Christian era, and those fathers who are supposed to have -flourished during that period, and who are supposed to have seen or -heard, or had the opportunity of seeing or hearing, either Jesus or some -one or more of the twelve Apostles. Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius, -and Polycarp, are those whose names figure most familiarly in Christian -evidences as Apostolic fathers. But the evidence from these Apostolic -fathers is of a most unreliable character. Mosheim ("Ecclesiastical -History," cent. 1, cap. 2, sec. 3, 17) says that "the Apostolic history -is loaded with doubts, fables, and difficulties," and that not long -after Christ's ascension several histories were current of his life and -doctrines, full of "pious frauds and fabulous wonders." Amongst these -were "The Acts of Paul," "The Revelation of Peter," "The Gospel of -Peter," "The Gospel of Andrew," "The Gospel of John," "The Gospel of -James," "The Gospel of the Egyptians," etc. The attempts often made to -prove from the writings of Barnabas, Ignatius, etc., the prior existence -of the four Gospels, though specifically unnamed, by similarity of -phraseology in quotations, is a failure, even admitting for the moment -the genuineness of the Apostolic Scriptures, if the proof is intended to -carry the matter higher than that such and such statements were current -in some form or other, at the date the fathers wrote. As good an -argument might be made that some of the Gospel passages were adopted -from the fathers. The fathers occasionally quote, as from the mouth of -Jesus, words which are not found in any of our four Gospels, and make -reference to events not included in the Gospel narratives, clearly -evidencing that even if the four documents ascribed to Matthew, Mark, -Luke, and John, were in existence, they were not the only sources of -information from which some of the Apostolic fathers derived their -knowledge of Christianity, and evidencing also that the four Gospels had -attained no such specific superiority as to entitle them to special -mention by name. - -Of the epistle attributed to Barnabas, which is supposed by its -supporters to have been written in the latter part of the first century, -which, Paley says, is probably genuine, which is classed by Eusebius as -spurious ("Ecclesiastical History," book iii, cap. 25), and which Dr. -Donaldson does not hesitate for one moment in refusing to ascribe to -Barnabas the Apostle ("Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. i, p. 100), it is only -necessary to say that so far from speaking of the Gospels with the -greatest respect, it does not mention by name any one of the four -Gospels. There are some passages in Barnabas which are nearly identical -in phraseology with some Gospel passages, and which it has been argued -are quotations from one or other of the four Gospels, but which may -equally be quotations from other Gospels, or from writings not in the -character of Gospels. There are also passages which are nearly identical -with several of the New Testament epistles, but even the great framer of -Christian evidences, Lardner, declares his conviction that none of these -last-mentioned passages are quotations, or even allusions, to the -Pauline or other epistolary writings. Barnabas makes many quotations -which clearly demonstrate that the four Gospels, if then in existence -and if he had access to them, could not have been his only source of -information as to the teachings of Jesus (e.g, cap. 7). "The Lord -enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death." -"He required the goats to be of goodly aspect and similar, that when -they see him coming they may be amazed by the likeness to the goat." -Says he, "those who wish to behold me and lay hold of my kingdom, must -through tribulation and suffering obtain me" (cap. 12). And the Lord -saith, "When a tree shall be bent down and again rise, and when blood -shall flow out of the wound." Will the Religious Tract Society point out -from which of the Gospels these are quoted? - -Barnabas (cap. 10) says that Moses forbade the Jews to eat weasel flesh, -"because that animal conceives with the mouth," and forbad them to eat -the hyena because that animal annually changes its sex. This father -seems to have made a sort of _melange_ of some of the Pentateuchal -ordinances. He says (cap. 8) that the Heifer (mentioned in Numbers) was -a type of Jesus, that the _three_ (?) young men appointed to sprinkle, -denote Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that _wool was put upon a stick_ -because the kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, and (cap. 9) -that the 318 men _circumcised_ by Abraham stood for Jesus crucified. -Barnabas also declared that the world was to come to an end in 6,000 -years ("Freethinker's Text-Book," part ii, p. 268). In the Sinaitic -Bible, the Epistle of St. Barnabas has now, happily for misguided -Christians, been discovered in the original Greek. To quote the -inimitable style of Dr. Tischendorf, "while so much has been lost in the -course of centuries by the tooth of time and the carelessness of -ignorant monks, an invisible eye had watched over this treasure, and -when it was on the point of perishing in the fire, the Lord had decreed -its deliverance;" "while critics have generally been divided between -assigning it to the first or second decade of the second century, the -Sinaitic Bible, which has for the first time cleared up this question, -has led us to throw its composition as far back as the last decade of -the first century." A fine specimen of Christian evidence writing, cool -assertion without a particle of proof and without the slightest reason -given. How does the Siniatic MS, even if it be genuine, clear up the -question of the date of St. Barnabas's Epistle? Dr. Tischendorf does not -condescend to tell us what has led the Christian advocate to throw back -the date of its composition? We are left entirely in the dark: in fact, -what Dr. Tischendorf calls a "throw back," is if you look at Lardner -just the reverse. What does the epistle of Barnabas prove, even if it be -genuine? Barnabas quotes, by name, Moses and Daniel, but never Matthew, -Mark, Luke or John. Barnabas specifically refers to Deuteronomy and the -prophets, but never to either of the four Gospels. - -There is an epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, which has been -preserved in a single MS only where it is coupled with another epistle -rejected as spurious. Dr. Donaldson ("Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. i, p. -3) declares that who the Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed -cannot with absolute certainty be determined. Both epistles stand on -equal authority; one is rejected by Christians, the other is received. -In this epistle while there is a distinct reference to an Epistle by -Paul to the Corinthians, there is no mention by name of the four -Gospels, nor do any of the words attributed by Clement to Jesus agree -for any complete quotation with anyone of the Gospels as we have them. -The Rev. W. Sanday is frank enough to concede "that Clement is not -quoting directly from our Gospels." - -Is it probable that Clement would have mentioned a writing by Paul, and -yet have entirely ignored the four Gospels, if he had known that they -had then existed? And could they have easily existed in the Christian -world in his day without his knowledge? If anyone takes cap. xxv of this -epistle and sees the phoenix given as a historic fact, and as evidence -for the reality of the resurrection, he will be better able to -appreciate the value of this so-called epistle of Clement. - -The letters of Ignatius referred to by Dr. Tischendorf are regarded by -Mosheim as laboring under many difficulties, and embarrassed with much -obscurity. Even Lardner, doing his best for such evidences, says, that -if we find matters in the Epistles inconsistent with the notion that -Ignatius was the writer, it is better to regard such passages as -interpolations, than to reject the Epistles entirely, especially in the -"scarcity" of such testimonies. - -There are fifteen epistles of which eight are undisputedly forgeries. Of -the remaining seven there are two versions, a long and a short version, -one of which must be corrupt, both of which may be. These seven -epistles, however, are in no case to be accepted with certainty as those -of Ignatius. Dr. Cureton contends that only three still shorter epistles -are genuine ("Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. i, pp. 137 to 143). The Rev. W. -Sanday treats the three short ones as probably genuine, waiving the -question as to the others ("Gospels in Second Century," p. 77, and see -preface to sixth edition "Supernatural Religion"). Ignatius, however, -even if he be the writer of the epistles attributed to him, never -mentions either of the four Gospels. In the nineteenth chapter of the -Epistle to the Ephesians, there is a statement made as to the birth and -death of Jesus, not to be found in either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. - -If the testimony of the Ignatian Epistles is reliable, then it vouches -that in that early age there were actually Christians who denied the -death of Jesus. A statement as to Mary in cap. nineteen of the Epistle -to the Ephesians is not to be found in any portion of the Gospels. In -his Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius, attacking those who denied the -real existence of Jesus, would have surely been glad to quote the -evidence of eye witnesses like Matthew and John, if such evidence had -existed in his day. In cap. eight of the Epistles to the Philadelphians, -Ignatius says, "I have heard of some who say: Unless I find it in the -archives I will not believe the Gospel. And when I said it is written, -they answered that remains to be proved." This is the most distinct -reference to any Christian writings, and how little does this support -Dr. Tischendorf's position. From which of our four Gospels could -Ignatius have taken the words, "I am not an incorporeal demon," which he -puts into the mouth of Jesus in cap. iii, the epistle to the Smyrnaeans? -Dr. Tischendorf does admit that the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles is -not of decisive value; might he not go farther and say, that as proof of -the four Gospels it is of no value at all? - -On page 70, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Hippolytus without any qualification. -Surely the English Religious Tract Society might have remembered that -Dodwell says, that the name of Hippolytus had been so abused by -impostors, that it was not easy to distinguish any of his writings. That -Mill declares that, with one exception, the pieces extant under his name -are all spurious. That, except fragments in the writings of opponents, -the works of Hip-polytus are entirely lost. Yet the Religious Tract -Society permit testimony so tainted to be put forward under their -authority, to prove the truth of Christian history. The very work which -Dr. Tischendorf pretends to quote is not even mentioned by Eusebius, in -the list he gives of the writings of Hippolytus. - -On page 94, Dr. Tischendorf states that Basilides, before A.D. 138, and -Valentinus, about A.D. 140, make use of three out of four Gospels, the -first using John and Luke, the second, Matthew, Luke, and John. What -words of either Basilides or Valentinus exist anywhere to justify this -reckless assertion? Was Dr. Tisch-endorf again presuming on the utter -ignorance of those who are likely to read his pamphlet? The Religious -Tract Society are responsible for Dr. Tischendorf s allegations, which -it is impossible to support with evidence. - -The issue raised is not whether the followers of Basilides or the -followers of Valentinus may have used these gospels, but whether there -is a particle of evidence to justify Dr. Tischendorf s declaration, that -Basilides and Valentinus themselves used the above-named gospels. That -the four Gospels were well known during the second half of the first -century is what Dr. Tischendorf undertook to prove, and statements -attributed to Basilides and Valentinus, but which ought to be attributed -to their followers, will go but little way as such proof (see -"Supernatural Religion," vol. ii, pp. 41 to 63). - -It is pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the bushel of Tischendorf -chaff. On page 98, and following pages, the erudite author applies -himself to get rid of the testimony of Papias, which was falsified and -put forward by Paley as of great importance. Paley says the authority of -Papias is complete; Tischendorf declares that Papias is in error. Paley -says Papias was a hearer of John, Tischendorf says he was not. We leave -the champions of the two great Christian evidence-mongers to settle the -matter as best they can. If, however, we are to accept Dr. Tischendorfs -declaration that the testimony of Papias is worthless, we get rid of the -chief link between Justin Martyr and the apostolic age. It pleases Dr. -Tischendorf to damage Papias, because that father is silent as to the -gospel of John; but the Religious Tract Society must not forget that in -thus clearing away the second-hand evidence of Papias, they have cut -away their only pretence for saying that any of the Gospels are -mentioned by name within 150 years of the date claimed for the birth of -Jesus. In referring to the lost work of Theophilus of Antioch, which Dr. -Tischendorf tells us was a kind of harmony of the Gospels, in which the -four narratives are moulded and fused into one, the learned Doctor -forgets to tell us that Jerome, whom he quotes as giving some account of - -Theophilus, actually doubted whether the so-called commentary was really -from the pen of that writer. Lardner says: "Whether those commentaries -which St. Jerome quotes were really composed by Theophilus may be -doubted, since they were unknown to Eusebius, and were observed by -Jerome to differ in style and expression from his other works. However, -if they were not his, they were the work of some anonymous ancient." But -if they were the work of an anonymous ancient after Eusebius, what -becomes of Dr. Tischendorf s "as early as A.D. 170?" - -Eusebius, who refers to Theophilus, and who speaks of his using the -Apocalypse, would have certainly gladly quoted the Bishop of Antioch's -"Commentary on the Four Gospels," if it had existed in his day. Nor is -it true that the references we have in Jerome to the work attributed to -Theophilus, justify the description given by Dr. Tischendorf, or even -the phrase of Jerome, "_qui quatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta -compingens._" Theophilus seems, so far as it is possible to judge, to -have occupied himself not with a connected history of Jesus, or a -continuous discourse as to his doctrines, but rather with mystical and -allegorical elucidations of occasional passages, which ended, like many -pious commentaries on the Old or New Testament, in leaving the point -dealt with a little less clear with the Theophillian commentary than -without it. Dr. Tischendorf says that Theo-doret and Eusebius speak of -Tatian in the same way--that is, as though he had, like his Syrian -contemporary, composed a harmony of the four Gospels. This is also -inaccurate. Eusebius talks of Tatianus "having found a certain body and -collection of Gospels, I know not how," which collection Eusebius does -not appear even to have ever seen; and so far from the phrase in -Theodoret justifying Dr. Tischendorfs explanation, it would appear from -Theodoret that Tatian's Diatessaron was, in fact, a sort of spurious -gospel, "The Gospel of the Four" differing materially from our four -Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Neither Irenaeus, Clement of -Alexandria, or Jerome, who refer to other works of Tatian, make any -mention of this. Dr. Tischendorf might have added that Diapente, or "the -Gospel of the Five," has also been a title applied to this work of -Tatian. - -In the third chapter of his essay, Dr. Tischendorf refers to apocryphal -writings "which bear on their front the names of Apostles" "used by -obscure writers to palm off" their forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says that -these spurious books were composed "partly to embellish" scripture -narratives, and "partly to support false doctrine;" and he states that -in early times, the Church was not so well able to distinguish true -gospels from false ones, and that consequently some of the apocryphal -writings "were given a place they did not deserve." This statement of -the inability of the Church to judge correctly, tells as much against -the whole, as against any one or more of the early Christian writings, -and as it may be as fatal to the now received gospels as to those now -rejected, it deserves the most careful consideration. According to Dr. -Tischendorf, Justin Martyr falls into the category of those of the -Church who were "not so critical in distinguishing the true from the -false;" for Justin, says Tischendorf, treats the Gospel of St. James and -the Acts of Pilate, each as a fit source whence to derive materials for -the life of Jesus, and therefore must have regarded the Gospel of St. -James and the Acts of Pilate, as genuine and authentic writings; while -Dr. Tischendorf, wiser, and a greater critic than Justin, condemns the -Gospel of St. James as spurious, and calls the Acts of Pilate "a pious -fraud;" but if Dr. Tischendorf be correct in his statement that "Justin -made use of this Gospel" and quotes the "Acts of Pontius Pilate," then, -according to his own words, Justin did not know how to distinguish the -true from the false, and the whole force of his evidence previously used -by Dr. Tischendorf in aid of the four Gospels would have been seriously -diminished, even if it had been true, which it is not, that Justin -Martyr had borne any testimony on the subject. - -Such, then, are the weapons, say the Religious Tract Society, by their -champion, "which we employ against unbelieving criticism." And what are -these weapons? We have shown in the preceding pages, the _suppressio -veri_ and the _suggestio falsi_ are amongst the weapons used. The -Religious Tract Society directors are parties to fabrication of -evidence, and they permit a learned charlatan to forward the cause of -Christ with craft and chicane. But even this is not enough; they need, -according to their pamphlet, "a new weapon;" they want "to find out the -very words the Apostles used." True believers have been in a state of -delusion; they were credulous enough to fancy that the authorised -version of the Scriptures tolerably faithfully represented God's -revelation to humankind. But no, says Dr. Tischendorf, it has been so -seriously modified in the copying and re-copying that it ought to be set -aside altogether, and a fresh text constructed. Glorious news this for -the Bible Society. Listen to it, Exeter Hall! Glad tidings to be issued -by the Paternoster Row saints! After spending hundreds of thousands of -pounds in giving away Bibles to soldiers, in placing them in hotels and -lodging-houses, and shipping them off to negroes and savages, it appears -that the wrong text has been sent through the world, the true version -being all the time in a waste-paper heap at Mount Sinai, watched over by -an "invisible eye." But, adds Dr. Tischendorf, "if you ask me whether -any popular version contains the original text, my answer is Yes and No. -I say Yes as far as concerns your soul's salvation." If these are enough -for the soul's salvation, why try to improve the matter? If we really -need the "full and clear light" of the Sinaitic Bible to show us "what -is the Word written by God," then most certainly our present Bible is -not believed by the Religious Tract Society to be the Word written by -God. The Christian advocates are in this dilemma: either the received -text is insufficient, or the proposed improvement is unnecessary. Dr. -Tischendorf says that "The Gospels, like the only begotten of the -Father, will endure as long as human nature itself," yet he says "there -is a great diversity among the texts," and that the Gospel in use -amongst the Ebionites and that used amongst the Nazarenes have been -"disfigured here and there with certain arbitrary changes." He admits, -moreover, that "in early times, when the Church was not so critical in -distinguishing the true from the false," spurious Gospels obtained a -credit which they did not deserve. And while arguing for the enduring -character of the Gospel, he requests you to set aside the received text -altogether, and to try to construct a new revelation by the aid of Dr. -Tischendorf s patent Sinaitic invention. - -We congratulate the Religious Tract Society upon their manifesto, and on -the victory it secures them over German Rationalism and English -Infidelity. The Society's translator, in his introductory remarks, -declares that "circumstantial evidence when complete, and when every -link in the chain has been thoroughly tested, is as strong as direct -testimony;" and, adds the Society's penman, "This is the kind of -evidence which Dr. Tischendorf brings for the genuineness of our -Gospels." It would be difficult to imagine a more inaccurate description -of Dr. Tischendorf s work. Do we find the circumstantial evidence -carefully tested in the Doctor's boasting and curious narrative of his -journeys commenced on a pecuniary deficiency and culminating in much -cash? Do we find it in Dr. Tischendorf s concealment for fifteen years -of the place, watched over by an invisible eye, in which was hidden the -greatest biblical treasure in the world? Is the circumstantial evidence -shown in the sneers at Renan? or is each link in the chain tested by the -strange jumbling together of names and conjectures in the first chapter? -What tests are used in the cases of Valentinus and Basilides in the -second chapter? How is the circumstantial testimony aided by the -references in the third chapter to the Apocryphal Gospels? Is there a -pretence even of critical testing in the chapter devoted to the -apostolic fathers? All that Dr. Tisch-endorf has done is in effect to -declare that our authorised version of the New Testament is so -unreliable, that it ought to be got rid of altogether, and a new text -constructed. And this declaration is circulated by the Religious Tract -Society, which sends the sixpenny edition of the Gospel with one hand, -and in the other the shilling Tischendorf pamphlet, declaring that many -passages of the Religious Tract Society's New Testament have undergone -such serious modifications of meaning as to leave us in painful -uncertainty as to what was originally written. - -The very latest contribution from orthodox sources to the study of the -Gospels, as contained in the authorised version, is to be found in the -very candid preface to the recently-issued revised version of the New -Testament, where the ordinary Bible receives a condemnation of the most -sweeping description. Here, on the high authority of the revisers, we -are told that, with regard to the Greek text, the translators of the -authorised version had for their guides "manuscripts of late date, few -in number and used with little critical skill." The revisers add what -Freethinkers have long maintained, and have been denounced from pulpits -for maintaining, viz., "that the commonly received text needed thorough -revision," and, what is even more important, they candidly avow that "it -is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a -work with even approximate completeness." So that not only "God's Word" -has admittedly for generations not been "God's Word" at all, but even -now, and with materials not formerly known, it has only been revised -with "approximate completeness," whatever those two words may mean. If -they have any significance at all, they must convey the belief of the -new and at present final revisers of the Gospel, that, even after all -their toil, they are not quite sure that god's revelation is quite -exactly rendered into English. So far as the ordinary authorised version -of the New Testament goes--and it is this, the law-recognised version -which is still used in administering oaths--we are told that the old -translators "used considerable freedom," and "studiously adopted a -variety of expressions which would now be deemed hardly consistent with -the requirements of faithful translation." This is a pleasant euphemism, -but a real and direct charge of dishonest translation by the authorised -translators. The new revisers add, with sadness, that "it cannot be -doubted that they (the translators of the authorised version) carried -this liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity in -the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same -context, is one of the blemishes of their work." These blemishes the new -revisers think were increased by the fact that the translation of the -authorised version of the New Testament was assigned to two separate -companies, who never sat together, which "was beyond doubt the cause of -many inconsistencies," and, although there was a final supervision, the -new revisers add, most mournfully: "When it is remembered that the -supervision was completed in nine months, we may wonder that the -incongruities which remain are not more numerous." - -Nor are the revisers by any means free from doubt and misgiving on their -own work. They had the "laborious task" of "deciding between the rival -claims of various readings which might properly affect the translation," -and, as they tell us, "Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek New -Testament, forms a special study of much intricacy and difficulty, and -even now leaves room for considerable variety of opinion among competent -critics." Next they say: "the frequent inconsistencies in the authorised -version have caused us much embarrassment," and that there are "numerous -passages in the authorised version in which... the studied variety -adopted by the Translators of 1611 has produced a degree of -inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principle of -faithfulness." So little are the new revisers always certain as to what -god means that they provide "alternative readings in difficult or -debateable passages," and say "the notes of this last group are numerous -and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors." -And with reference to the pronouns and other words in italics we are -told that "some of these cases... are of singular intricacy, and make it -impossible to maintain rigid uniformity." The new revisers conclude by -declaring that "through our manifold experience of its abounding -difficulties we have felt more and more as we went onward that such a -work can never be accomplished by organised efforts of scholarship and -criticism unless assisted by divine help." Apparently the new revisers -are conscious that they did not receive this divine help in their -attempt at revision, for they go on: "We know full well that defects -must have their place in a work so long and so arduous as this which has -now come to an end. Blemishes and imperfections there are in the noble -translation which we have been called upon to revise; blemishes and -imperfections will assuredly be found in our own revision... we cannot -forget how often we have failed in expressing some finer shade of -meaning which we recognised in the original, how often idiom has stood -in the way of a perfect rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve -a familiar form of words, or even a familiar cadence, has only added -another perplexity to those which have already beset us." - - - - -MR. GLADSTONE IN REPLY TO COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY - - -IN the early days of the _National Reformer_ there was some reason to -believe that, despite his enormous work and his utterly differing views, -Mr. Gladstone was not unfrequently a reader of some of the papers -appearing in its columns. Later there was on one occasion a very -remarkable piece of evidence that, whilst considering as "questionable" -the literature issued from the publishing office of the late Mr. Austin -Holyoake, the veteran statesman did not pass it without notice. I do not -know if Mr. Gladstone has, during the last dozen years or so, had time -or inclination for similar acquaintance with the utterances of advanced -Freethought in this country--though his critique on a recent novel gives -affirmative probability--but it is clear that he watches heretical -utterances across the Atlantic; for in the _North American Review_ for -May, Mr. Gladstone--intervening in a correspondence going on between the -Rev. Dr. Field and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll--takes up his pen against the -eloquent American. I have hesitated very much as to publicly noticing -the North American Review article, for my personal reverence for Mr. -Gladstone is very great. I know how very far from one another we are on -questions of religion, and believing that the religious side or bent of -Mr. Gladstone's mind is stronger than any other feeling influencing him, -I can conceive that I may offend much in any criticism, however -respectfully worded. Yet I am sure that Mr. Gladstone's high position -entitles all he says to most attentive audience, and my duty to those in -the Freethought ranks who trust me compels me that I should tender some -words of comment. I venture to hope that the view of duty Mr Gladstone -has felt incumbent on him may prevail on my side to prevent any -appearance of impertinent interference. - -It is not proposed to deal here with the points in controversy between -Dr. Field and Colonel Ingersoll, or with the ease as between Mr. -Gladstone and the Colonel. All that will be ventured on is a brief -comment, from my own standpoint, on some of the positions adopted by Mr. -Gladstone, writing as a Christian believer. - -Early in the article, stating his own position, Mr. Gladstone says: -"Belief in divine guidance is not of necessity belief that such guidance -can never be frustrated by the laxity, the infirmity, the perversity of -man alike in the domain of action and the domain of thought." The whole -effect of this sentence is governed by the meaning attached by the -writer to the words "divine guidance." If the meaning intended to be -conveyed by the word "divine" includes the assumption of omnipotent -omniscience for the person or influence described as divine, and if -"guidance" means the intentional direction of the human by the divine to -a given end, then it is not easy to understand how this can be -intelligently believed, and yet that the same believer shall at the same -time believe that laxity or infirmity on the part of the individual -guided may "frustrate" the guidance, that is, may counteract it, nullify -it, or overcome it. That mental infirmity in the individual may be -irremediable by Deity is a proposition which challenges the assumed -omniscient omnipotence. That fallible human perversity may be more -powerful than omnipotent intent is a contradiction in terms. If the -affirmer of divine influence regarded the "divine" person as creator, -and the individuals guided as created results, then the infirmity, i.e., -insufficient capacity of the created, must have been intentional on the -part of an omniscient, and the "guidance" would be illusory, in that the -"divine" must, even prior to creation, have planned and predesigned the -frustration of his own guiding effort by means of this infirmity. -Perversity on the part of the created individual, whether originated -purposely by the creator or developed in spite of the omnipotent guider, -such perversity, sufficient in activity to frustrate the active intent -of omnipotence, involves wholesale contradiction on the part of, or -utter confusion in the mind of, the believer. According to Mr. -Gladstone, the "divine" may guide the individual to think x, intending -the individual to think x, but knowing that the individual cannot (from -infirmity) think x, or will not (from perversity) think x, and therefore -the divine purpose is frustrated: the "divine," i.e., the omnipotent -being, is not only unable or unwilling to cure the infirmity, or to -overcome the perversity, but is actually the cause of the fatal -infirmity or perversity. That Mr. Gladstone honestly believes this is -manifest, but I venture to deny that such honest belief can be accepted -as the equivalent for accurate thought. It may be the equivalent for a -state of mind, which, existing amongst millions of human beings in -diverse races, is yet consistent with the wide prevalence of -ir-reconcileable faiths, and with faiths irreconcileable with fact. -Alike in thought and action, Mr. Gladstone believes the divine guidance -may be frustrated by human perversity, and thus possibly explains to -himself why it is that the Christian Governments of Europe have, in this -close of the nineteenth century, literally millions of men constantly -ready for the work of killing those who belong to the common family of -"Our Father which art in heaven." - -Taking up the words of the questioning challenge by Colonel Ingersoll to -Dr. Field "What think you of Jephthah?" Mr. Gladstone writes: "I am -aware of no reason why any believer in Christianity should not be free -to canvass, regret, or condemn the act of Jephthah. So far as the -narration which details it is concerned, there is not a word of sanction -given to it more than to the falsehood of Abraham in Egypt, or of Jacob -and Rebecca in the matter of the hunting (Gen. xx, 1-8, and Gen. xxiii -[this is a misprint for xxvii]); or to the dissembling of St. Peter in -the case of the Judaising converts (Gal. ii, 11); I am aware of no color -of approval given to it elsewhere. But possibly the author of the reply -may have thought that he found such an approval in the famous eleventh -chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the apostle, handling his -subject with a discernment and care very different to those of the -reply, writes thus (Heb. xi, 32): 'And what shall I say more? for the -time would fail me to tell of Gideon, of Barak, and of Samson, and of -Jephthah: of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets.' Jephthah, -then, is distinctly held up to us by a canonical writer as an object of -praise. But of praise on what account? Why should the reply assume that -it is on account of the sacrifice of his child?" - -I submit that to condemn the voluntary human sacrifice by Jephthah to -Jehovah, it is necessary to condemn the Bible presentment. A believer in -Christianity who condemned the act of Jephthah would in this necessarily -condemn also the devotion to the Lord of a human being and the carrying -out the vow by actual human sacrifice. But Leviticus xxvii, 28 and 29, -authorises such a vow, and enacts the result in precise language. -Kalisch, writing on this ("Leviticus," Part I, p. 385), says: "The fact -stands indisputable that human sacrifices offered to Jehovah were -possible among the Hebrews long after the time of Moses, without meeting -check or censure from the teachers or leaders of the nation." - -Mr. Gladstone correctly enough maintains that the Bible gives no more -sanction to the conduct of Jephthah "than to the falsehood of Abraham in -Egypt." I quite admit that this is accurately stated, but God frequently -described himself as the "God of Abraham;" Abraham is pictured as being -in heaven; special promises were made to Abraham; and if these were not -as sanctioning his conduct, they nevertheless were marks of approbation -without blame of that conduct. In ordinary cases where reward is given -it is not unnaturally associated with the narrated conduct of the person -rewarded. Abraham and Jephthah stand on much the same footing on the -question of readiness to offer human sacrifice, except that in -Jephthah's case the initiative is with him. In the case of Abraham, the -initiative is from the Lord. - -Mr. Gladstone, again, accurately says that there is no more sanction -given to the act of Jephthah than is given to the trick and deliberate -falsehood by which Jacob cheated blind Isaac out of the blessing -intended for Esau. That is so; but, according to the Genesis narrative, -God practically endorsed the fraud when he not only declared himself the -God of Jacob, but by his prophet declared that he loved Jacob and hated -Esau (Romans ix, 13). When the cheater is loved and the cheated hated, -it is scarcely straining the text to associate sanction of the act with -the love expressed for the the conduct of the person rewarded. - -The narration as to Jephthah is of a distinct bargain between Jephthah -and the Lord, and a bargain made under spiritual influence, or, to use -Mr. Gladstone's words, under divine guidance. The text is explicit -(Judges xi, 29, 30, 31): - -"Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over -Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh -of Gilead he passed over unto the chil-dren of Ammon. 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." - -After this vow the Lord does deliver the children of Ammon into -Jephthah's hands, and Jephthah--who says: "I have opened my mouth unto -the Lord, and I cannot go back"--in return keeps his part of the -agreement, "and did with her according to his vow." And yet Mr. -Gladstone writes that there is no reason so far as he is aware, to -prevent a Christian from condemning this act of Jephthah. No reason, -except that the condemnation must include the condemning of the practice -of such vows generally, though specially enacted (Leviticus xxvii, 28, -29): - -"Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord -of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his -possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy -unto the Lord. None devoted which shall be devoted of men, shall be -redeemed but shall surely be put to death"-- - -and must also involve the express condemnation of the particular bargain -assented to and completed alike by Jephthah and by "the Lord." - -With the challenge as to Jephthah, Col. Ingersoll asked Dr. Field "What -of Abraham?" and this, too, is taken up by Mr. Gladstone who says of -Abraham: "He is not commended because, being a father, he made all the -preparations antecedent to plunging the knife into his son. He is -commended (as I read the text) because, having received a glorious -promise, a promise that his wife should be the mother of nations, and -that kings should be born of her (Genesis xvii, 6), and that by his seed -the blessings of redemption should be conveyed to man, and the -fulfilment of the promise being dependent solely upon the life of Isaac, -he was nevertheless willing that the chain of these promises should be -broken by the extinction of that life, because his faith assured him -that the Almighty would find the way to give effect to his own designs" -(Heb. xi, 16-19). But the text is surely clear on this. Abraham is -praised because he offered up Isaac, that is, that he was ready and -willing to offer a human sacrifice to "the Lord" similar to that which -was actually offered by Jephthah. Jephthah's sacrifice was voluntary; -Abraham's uncompleted sacrifice was undertaken in obedience to the -pressure of temptation by God. - -Mr. Gladstone observes that "the facts... are grave and startling," and -he might well write thus if he had before him any record of the case of -a man tried in the United States for the murder of his son. The man -imagined and believed, as Abraham is stated to have imagined and -believed, that he heard God command him to kill his son as a sacrifice; -the man obeyed what he believed to be the divine command. While Abraham -only "took the knife to slay his son," the American actually killed his -child. On the trial the jury found that the man was insane; that the -imagined divine command was delusion; that what the man claimed to be an -act of faith in God was an act of human insanity. Mr. Gladstone says -that Abraham's faith "may have been qualified by a reserve of hope that -God would interpose before the final act," that is, that the -interposition would come before he, like Jephthah, actually killed his -child as a human sacrifice to the Deity who tempted him. The Bible text -gives no support to Mr. Gladstone's qualifying theory. Genesis xxii, 1, -2, says: - -"God did tempt Abraham.... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son -Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer -him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will -tell thee of." - -Without hesitation, Abraham, according to the narrative, takes his son -to the place, binds him to the wood, and deliberately prepares to carry -out the sacrifice. Abraham either deceives the men (verse 5) and -misleads his son (verses 7 and 8), or Abraham did not believe in the -consummation of the sacrifice, and in the latter case the faith for -which he is praised would be no more than hypocritic pretence. Nay, the -text expressly represents God as affirming that Abraham was ready to -carry out the sacrifice of his son (verse 16): - -"By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this -thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son." - -If Abraham only offered to kill his son as a sacrifice with the mental -qualification that the offer would not be accepted, and that the -sacrifice would not be exacted, then the Lord must have been misled into -the swearing recited in the text. - -Evidently Mr. Gladstone, himself a humane man and loving father, is not -quite at ease in dealing with this part of Abraham's history. He says -(1) "that the narrative does not supply us with a complete statement of -particulars;" (2) that "the command was addressed to Abraham under -conditions essentially different from those which now determine for us -the limits of moral obligations;" (3) "that the estimate of human life -at the time was different;" (4) - -that "the position of the father in the family was different: its -members were regarded as in some sense his property." I rejoin (1) that -to read into the text vital words of explanation which are not -specifically expressed in the "divine revelation"--and to so read -because without these words the text is incredible--is perilously near -downright infidelity. And that, given the incompleteness of Genesis, the -added explanation must vary with the intellect, training, and temper of -the expositor, e.g. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Spurgeon, or the man who killed -his child in America, would fill up each imagined hiatus in very diverse -fashions. (2) Mr. Gladstone's argument can only be maintainable on the -assumption that the limits of moral obligation were in the time of -Abraham differently determined--for or by, "the Lord"--from such limits -today, that is, that the "divine guide" is not immutable. (3) That to -render this argument permissible on the part of a believer in -Christianity it must be assumed that "the Lord" then estimated the value -of human life differently from the manner in which he now would estimate -it, because--unless "the Lord" was simply deceiving Abraham in the -original direction and the subsequent swearing--"the Lord" concurred in -and approved the proposed sacrifice by Abraham; as he also afterwards -concurred in and approved the actual sacrifice by Jephthah. (4) [nvolves -the assumption that the morality of family relation is now admittedly -higher under modern civilisation than when specially regulated by -"divine guidance." - -3 "Capital and Wages," p. 19. - -4 "Perversion of Scotland," p. 197. - -Mr. Gladstone grants that "there is every reason to suppose that around -Abraham in 'the land Moriah,' the practice of human sacrifice as an act -of religion was in full vigor," and he does not fall into the error of -ordinary Biblical apologists in pretending that the practice of human -sacrifice was confined to "false "religions. - -Mr. Gladstone fairly states that the command received by Abraham to -offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice was not only "obviously -inconsistent with the promises which had preceded," but "was also -inconsistent with the morality acknowledged in later times." I submit -that this statement is really a condemnation by Mr. Gladstone of the -divine command, in that it is a declaration that such a command -would--in times later than Abraham, in fact, in our own times--be an -immoral command. Here there ought not to be any question raised of -changed conditions, for the command is from "the Lord," that is, from -the assumed immutable, omniscient Omnipotent. Mr. Gladstone, it is true, -contends that "though the law of moral action is the same everywhere and -always, it is variously applicable to the human being, as we know from -experience; and its first form is that of simple obedience to a superior -whom there is every ground to trust." As in the article Mr. Gladstone -has given no definition of what he means by morality, I have no right to -go beyond his statement. Following Bentham and Mill, I should personally -maintain the utilitarian definition of morality, i.e., "that that action -is moral which is for the greatest good of the greatest number with the -least injury to any." But this would not in any fashion fit in with Mr. -Gladstone's contention, which in the case of a Russian, would make the -act moral which is of simple obedience to the Czar, even though that act -happened to be the knouting of a delicate woman; or in the case of a -Roman Catholic would declare the act to be moral which was performed in -simple obedience to the Pope, even though it were the applying the fire -to the faggots piled round Giordano Bruno; or in the case of an English -sailor would make the act moral done in obedience to the commander of -his ship, even though it should be the placing a destructive torpedo in -contact with a crowded vessel of an enemy; or in the case of an Irish -constable, though the act should be the shooting, on the command of his -superior, from the window of a Mitchelstown barrack, even though the -result was the murder of an unoffending old man. - - - - -A FEW WORDS ON THE CHRISTIANS' CREED - - -TO THE REV. J.G. PACKER, A.M, INCUMBERER OF ST. PETER'S, HACKNEY ROAD - -SIR,--Had the misfortunes which I owe to your officious interference -been less than they are, and personal feeling left any place in my mind -for deliberation or for inquiry in selecting a proper person to whom to -dedicate these few remarks, I should have found myself directed, by many -considerations, to the person of the Incumberer of St. Peter's, Hackney -Road. A life spent in division from part of your flock, and in crushing -those whom you could not answer, may well entitle you to the respect of -all true bigots. Hoping that you will be honoured as you deserve, - -I am, Reverend Sir, - -Yours truly, - - C. BRADLAUGH - -THE Creed of the Christian is what I proceed to consider, and I shall -take for consideration the one which we have given us in the Communion -Service of the Church of England. It begins thus: "I believe in one God, -the Father, Almighty." Here is a declaration of belief in the unity of -God. How far this declaration is carried out in the latter parts of the -creed, is a matter for further investigation; but we will now take the -next sentence: "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and -invisible." Here, in the two sentences, we have the declaration of -belief in a power that has created the universe. Now, the very term -"belief" implies that the thing is not known; for when we have attained -knowledge, we are beyond mere belief. As the believers are in doubt -about the existence of a creator, I will endeavor to investigate the -probability of there being such an existence. If you put any inquiries -to a Christian as to the creation, he will tell you that God made matter -out of nothing. If you ask him who or what God is, he will tell you that -God is quite incomprehensible. Failing to get any other information on -this point, you ask him, but how could something be produced from -nothing? to which, if he is a pious man, he will reply, that, too, is -incomprehensible; and also add, that it is one of those mysteries of -religion that we must not attempt to reason upon. Having satisfied -ourselves that the Christian can give us no information, beyond that -which is contained in a book which he calls a revelation from God, we -look to this book to ascertain, if we can, something further relating to -this incomprehensibility. We, however, now find ourselves in a worse -position than we were before, for we are told in one text that God is -all-powerful; in another text (Judges i, 19) we are told that he is not. -In one text we are told that God is unchangeable; and in another we are -told that God grieves and repeats (Gen. vi, 6). In another that he gets -in a passion, and marches through the land in indignation, and thrashes -the heathen in his anger (Habakkuk iii, 12). I might fill a volume with -these beautiful specimens of the character of the God of the Christian. -However, as the Bible quite supports God's character for -incomprehensibility, I think we need not doubt that thus far the -Christian is right. But, as this is not the sort of evidence that a -reasonable man will be satisfied with, and as the burden of proof lies -upon the man who declares or makes the assertion, I think all must come -to the conclusion that the assertion, not being supported by evidence, -must, as a matter of necessity, fall to the ground. - -The next passage runs thus: "And in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only -begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all the worlds." Here -is the declaration of a belief (which, however little it will bear -examination, we will take for the present) in a being whom we should -take from the word Son to be a personage inferior to God the Father, -especially as in John (xiv, 28), Jesus is represented saying "the Father -is greater than I;" but such is not the case, for the next words, "God -of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God," show that the Christian -makes Jesus not only to be equal, but to be superior to God the Father, -for he tells us that Jesus is God of Gods, and very God of very God. Now -if God the Father is incomprehensible, I can assure you that the God and -very God of God the Father appears to me to be doubly so. The belief -then proceeds, "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the -Father, by whom all things were made." This is a most important -declaration, for it clearly proves that the Christian believes in a -material and substantial God, or rather material and substantial Gods, -for he tells us that God the Father and God the Son are both of the same -substance. This belief in a material deity upsets the prior declaration -of the creation or production of matter from nothing, for if the Gods or -God of the Christians are or is eternal, and as they, or he, are or is -clearly material, so matter must be eternal, and could never have been -created. The belief next proceeds, "Who for us men and for our salvation -came own from heaven." This coming down and ascending up to heaven -clearly proves that the Christian considers that the earth is a kind of -flat surface with heaven above, and that God lives up in heaven, and -that he sometimes has come down to see us and gone up again after the -visit. But we are told that he came for our salvation. Now to be a -salvation there must be a fall. Of course there must, cries the exulting -Christian; look to Genesis and see the account of the fall of Adam. We -do look to Genesis, and we find that somebody called Yeue Alehim (whom -our translators make Lord God, but for what reason I am at a loss), has -placed Adam and Eve in a garden with a command not to eat certain fruit, -and that this Lord God, to make his command stronger, backs it with a -lie, for he tells Adam and Eve that in the day that they eat of it they -shall surely die, which the sequel proves not to be true, as they did -not die, but one of them lived 930 years after he had broken the -command. While Adam and Eve are in this garden a cunning serpent, whom -the Lord God also has made, tempts Eve, and they eat of the fruit of the -tree, and their eyes are opened, and they gain a knowledge of good and -evil. Now the Lord God seems to be very much like the bigoted parsons of -the present day, for when he finds out what Adam and Eve have done he -gets in a passion and swears at them, and curses Adam and his wife and -the serpent; and not satisfied with this, he curses the land too, just -as if the land had had some share in the crime. - -This is a summary of the account of the Fall contained in the Bible. -Because Adam and Eve had been guilty of the horrible crime of eating of -the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is they -learnt to think and reason for themselves, God Almighty found it -necessary to damn them; and depend upon it, reader, whoever you may be, -that when you are guilty of the crime of thinking, speaking, and acting -for yourself in religious matters, God's vicegerents on earth, the -black-coated, white-neckerchiefed, strait-haired, pious psalm-singing -gentry, will do their best to crush you and damn you by every means in -their power. They will calumniate you as they have done Thomas Paine and -the rest of those brave men who have been courageous enough to strive -for civil and religious liberty. - -But I fear I am guilty of digression, and therefore I will take you back -to the account of the Fall. Adam having been cursed, our pastors pretend -that it was necessary that there should be a redemption--for they have -such a good opinion of their God, that although they tell us that -without God's help we could not live and move, they think God would damn -the whole earth because one man [ate] an apple which, according to their -own account, he could not have done if God had not permitted him; -therefore, to use the words of Richard Carlile, they give us the -horrible picture of "a merciful God sacrificing a good and pure God to -appease the vengeance of a jealous and revengeful God." - -I will now leave this to the consideration of the reader, and take the -next passage, which runs thus: "And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of -the Virgin Mary, and was made man." I can scarcely imagine that any of -the Christians ever give this belief a thought, as, parrot-like, they -repeat it after their leader in the pulpit, for if they did think they -must be aware that they are uttering the most ridiculous and absurd -statements respecting their deity. The doctrine of the incarnation, -however, is common to the Hindoos; and as their religion is much older -than Christianity, I suppose they will admit that the Hindoos did not -derive their doctrine from the Christian, and also that it seems -extremely probable that the Christians derived their doctrine of the -incarnation from the Hindoos. This would go very far towards identifying -Christianity with Paganism; and therefore the devout Christian will -shudder at the thought, and again tell you that is a mystery that must -not be inquired into. But the absurdities contained in the idea of an -omnipotent and infinite God becoming a weak and finite man, must, I -think, be apparent to all. - -The creed then reads: "And was crucified, also, for us, under Pontius -Pilate. He suffered, and was buried." The idea of a Very God of Very God -_suffering_ and being buried! "And the third day he rose again according -to the scriptures." Now, unless there were other scriptures besides -those which we possess, Jesus did not rise according to the scriptures; -for the scriptures say, that as Jonah was three days and three nights in -the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three -nights in the heart of the earth. But Jesus was not three days and three -nights in the heart of the earth, for he was crucified in the course of -Friday, and was out of the grave before dawn on Sunday--being only one -clear day and two nights. So much for being according to the scriptures. - -It then proceeds: "And ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right -hand of the Father." We have been told that there is only one step from -the sublime to the ridiculous, and I think that this fully proves the -truth of the observation, for one moment we are told of an infinite God, -and the next of two infinite Gods, sitting beside each other in a finite -place called heaven. But this is not the whole of the absurdity; for the -idea of ascension into heaven proves what I have before noticed with -regard to the absurd ideas of heaven and earth contained in this creed. - -The creed proceeds: "And he shall come again with glory to judge both -the quick and the dead: whose kingdom shall have no end." This involves -the belief of the existence in a future state, and, as it is impossible -to prove a negative to the question, I shall put the following -interrogatories for the believer's consideration. In what state do you -expect man to exist with a knowledge of his identity after death? He -cannot exist in a material state, for the matter of which he was -composed has been dispersed, and now forms other bodies, and thus the -organisation is totally destroyed. You cannot tell me that the atoms of -which that man was composed will reunite, because that would presuppose -the existence of a power possessing the capability of the creation of -matter in the same state with the same knowledge of personal identity; -besides which, the matter of which Alexander the Great was composed may -now be in your body, and thus either you or poor Alexander would have to -go on short commons at the day of judgment. And with regard to anything -that may be said as to our existence in an immaterial state, I only ask -the believer to produce some proof of it, for as yet we have no proof, -and therefore have nothing to answer. - -The creed proceeds: "And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver -of Life: who proceedeth from the Father and Son." On this declaration I -have not much to say, except to point out the absurdity of it; for a -dissertation on the term Holy Ghost would be too long for my pages. If -God the Father and God the Son are living beings, then God the Holy -Ghost is not the Lord and Giver of Life; for he proceeds from them, and -they were before him. But if God the Holy Ghost is the Lord and Giver of -Life, then, till he came into existence, God Almighty and his Son must -have been without life. More than this, Jesus is said to be the son of -the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost; now, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from -Jesus first, it seems rather strange that Jesus should have proceeded -from the Holy Ghost afterwards. The "Ecce Homo" suggests that the -_aggelos_, or messenger who represented the Holy Ghost, might have been -a _young man_. - -But to return to our subject. It then proceeds: "Who, with the Father -and the Son together, is worshipped and glorified: who spake by the -prophets." Now it happens that there are a number of Lords who spake by -the prophets--such as _Yeue or Yehovah, Alehim, El Sheddi_, and -others--but not one Holy Ghost: so that the Bible gives the lie to the -belief, unless the Holy Ghost was the lying spirit in the case of Ahab, -and I am afraid that that would not tell much to the credit of the Holy -(or unholy) Ghost. - -"And I believe in one catholic and apostolic church." Setting aside the -word apostolic, this is the only good part in the belief; for depend -upon it readers, that till there is an universality of mind and action -throughout the world in one direction, we never shall have true -happiness. Therefore I praise the belief in a catholic or universal -church or community; but the objectionable word apostolic pulls me down -from the Utopia to which I had begun to soar, for that word spoils all. -With the word apostle are strangely mingled together some ideas of -Peter, the Pope, the Inquisition, thumbscrews, racks, stakes, and other -adjuncts to an apostolic church. - -"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins." Only think, -readers, the church set at loggerheads, and nearly L100,000 spent on the -last nine words. A bishop, with all the courage imaginable, speaking -what the _Times_ tells him may cost him his mitre, and then -excommunicating the whole who disagree with him, the _Times_ of course -included, on account of these words! I think after this we had better -read the passage again. What is baptism? Answer: Saying long prayers -over a baby in long clothes, till you wake it, and then sprinkling water -on it till you make it cry! What is remission of sins? Answer: Don't -know. Now I believe the grand question in dispute is whether the grace -comes before the baptism or at it, or after it, or whether it comes at -all; and to settle this question they have employed themselves in -worrying one another with threats, protests, and prohibitions, to the -benefit of the lawyers and us poor inquirers. I say our benefit, too, -for we are told that when rogues fall out honest men get their own. What -absurdity is contained in the idea that the baptising of a child with -water saved it from being damned for sins that it never committed! or, -how still more absurd is the idea that the child would be damned if it -were not baptised at all; yet this doctrine is taught and inculcated by -the Creed of the Church of England. The creed proceeds: "I look for the -resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." Together -with this resurrection are associated the ideas that we shall be brought -before the bar of God and give an account of our deeds, and that the bad -shall be sent to hell and the good to heaven. Now we are told that hell -is a lake of brimstone and fire; if that is the case, I deny that there -can be eternal punishment, for science proves that there is not enough -brimstone in any finite space to burn one man for ever, let alone -several millions: and with regard to heaven, if I am to go there I hope -it will not be near the planet Uranus, for I should feel too cold; or -near the sun, for then I should feel too hot, and should not be very -happy. However, take it at the worst, we freethinkers should be better -off than the believer, for bad as the believer makes his God, he surely -could never be unjust enough to send me to hell for speaking what I -believed to be the truth. - -Taking the Creed as a whole, it is one of the most ridiculous -declarations of faith imaginable, for the believer declares a belief in -Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And how are these pictured in Scripture? -"The Father is somewhere in heaven, the Son sits at his right hand, and -the Holy Ghost flies about in a bodily shape like a dove." What a -curious picture to present to any reasonable man--a Father begets a Son -from nothing, and a dove proceeds from the two of them. I shall say no -more on this disgusting part of Christianity--disgusting because so many -believe all that is told them by a man who possesses the same powers of -comprehension as themselves, and who has a position to maintain in the -world--I mean the priest. My blood runs cold to think of the mischief -that has been done by those men called priests; they are the bane of -society, for they rule the mass of society _vi et armis_ and they rule -it wrongfully; they do not give it a chance of obtaining a mouthful of -intellectual food without steeping it in the poison of their -superstitious dogmas, and till we take the antidote of free discussion -we shall never be free. But alas for reform! there are strong bulwarks -of faith and prejudice to be attacked and pulled down before that -antidote can fully counteract the debasing effects of superstition on -the mind and action of man. - -However, Christian, before concluding, I will give you a summary of your -most absurd Creed. You believe in God the Father who is eternal, and in -God the Son who is eternal too. You believe that the Holy Ghost is the -father of Jesus, and that Jesus is the son of God the Father. You -believe that the Holy Ghost is a _material spirit_, and that he has made -himself manifest in two forms, namely, a dove or pigeon, and a cloven -tongue of fire (the latter would be no bad emblem, were he the identical -lying spirit). You believe that a finite woman, who was a virgin, gave -birth to an infinite God, and yet that that God was a man. You believe -that Jesus went down into hell and stopped on his visit three days; but, -Christian, if it were true, do you think that the devil would have been -unwise enough to let his bitterest enemy out after he had got him so -nicely in his power? You believe that the Holy Ghost spoke by the -prophets. To do that he must have had foreknowledge, and we must have -been predestined to do certain acts; and yet you believe that we are -free, and shall be punished or rewarded according to our actions and -faith. You believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, are three -separate persons, and yet that they are one. - -You who are Papists believe that there are three Gods in one and one in -three, and that yours is the true Church, and that the Pope is the head -of the church, and the representative of God on earth. You who are -Churchmen hold the same trinity, but make Victoria, by the grace of God, -queen defender of the faith, nominal Pope of your church, and the -Archbishops of Canterbury and York the actual popes. You who are -Wesleyan elect John Wesley to the papal dignity, and so on with the -rest. - -I hope that all who profess the creed will look around and see the -present theological panic. The Wesleyans are divided by the "Fly Sheets" -into two parties, and are attacking one another most vigorously. The -Church of England is divided by Goreham, and the bishops are -excommunicating one another. And lastly, the Pope is at a discount in -the very seat of his empire, and Free-thought is slowly but steadily -increasing. - -To those readers who approve of this, I beg leave to ask their -assistance in the work of progress by their acting as well as talking -among their fellow-men. To those who disapprove, I say, "Answer it." - - - - - ---- - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS*** - - - - -A Word from Project Gutenberg - - -We will update this book if we find any errors. - -This book can be found under: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39266 - -Creating the works from public domain print editions means that no one -owns a United States copyright in these works, so the Foundation (and -you!) can copy and distribute it in the United States without permission -and without paying copyright royalties. Special rules, set forth in the -General Terms of Use part of this license, apply to copying and -distributing Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works to protect the -Project Gutenberg(tm) concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a -registered trademark, and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, -unless you receive specific permission. If you do not charge anything -for copies of this eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may -use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative -works, reports, performances and research. They may be modified and -printed and given away - you may do practically _anything_ with public -domain eBooks. Redistribution is subject to the trademark license, -especially commercial redistribution. - - - -The Full Project Gutenberg License - - -_Please read this before you distribute or use this work._ - -To protect the Project Gutenberg(tm) mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work (or -any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full Project -Gutenberg(tm) License available with this file or online at -http://www.gutenberg.org/license. - - -Section 1. General Terms of Use & Redistributing Project Gutenberg(tm) -electronic works - - -*1.A.* By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg(tm) -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all the -terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or destroy all -copies of Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works in your possession. If -you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a Project -Gutenberg(tm) electronic work and you do not agree to be bound by the -terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person or -entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. - -*1.B.* "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few things -that you can do with most Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works even -without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See paragraph -1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg(tm) electronic works if you follow the terms of this agreement -and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic -works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -*1.C.* The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection of -Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works. Nearly all the individual works -in the collection are in the public domain in the United States. If an -individual work is in the public domain in the United States and you are -located in the United States, we do not claim a right to prevent you -from copying, distributing, performing, displaying or creating -derivative works based on the work as long as all references to Project -Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope that you will support the -Project Gutenberg(tm) mission of promoting free access to electronic -works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg(tm) works in compliance with -the terms of this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg(tm) name -associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of this -agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its attached full -Project Gutenberg(tm) License when you share it without charge with -others. - -*1.D.* The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are in -a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, check -the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this agreement -before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, distributing or -creating derivative works based on this work or any other Project -Gutenberg(tm) work. The Foundation makes no representations concerning -the copyright status of any work in any country outside the United -States. - -*1.E.* Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -*1.E.1.* The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg(tm) License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg(tm) work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere at no cost and with - almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away - or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License - included with this eBook or online at http://www.gutenberg.org - -*1.E.2.* If an individual Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic work is -derived from the public domain (does not contain a notice indicating -that it is posted with permission of the copyright holder), the work can -be copied and distributed to anyone in the United States without paying -any fees or charges. If you are redistributing or providing access to a -work with the phrase "Project Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on -the work, you must comply either with the requirements of paragraphs -1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the -Project Gutenberg(tm) trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or -1.E.9. - -*1.E.3.* If an individual Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic work is -posted with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and -distribution must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and -any additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg(tm) License for all works posted -with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of -this work. - -*1.E.4.* Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project -Gutenberg(tm) License terms from this work, or any files containing a -part of this work or any other work associated with Project -Gutenberg(tm). - -*1.E.5.* Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg(tm) License. - -*1.E.6.* You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including any -word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access to or -distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg(tm) work in a format other than -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official version -posted on the official Project Gutenberg(tm) web site -(http://www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or -expense to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a -means of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original -"Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include -the full Project Gutenberg(tm) License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -*1.E.7.* Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg(tm) works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -*1.E.8.* You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works -provided that - - - You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg(tm) works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg(tm) trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - - - You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg(tm) - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg(tm) - works. - - - You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - - - You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg(tm) works. - - -*1.E.9.* If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg(tm) electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and Michael -Hart, the owner of the Project Gutenberg(tm) trademark. Contact the -Foundation as set forth in Section 3. below. - -*1.F.* - -*1.F.1.* Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -public domain works in creating the Project Gutenberg(tm) collection. -Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works, and the -medium on which they may be stored, may contain "Defects," such as, but -not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription -errors, a copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a -defective or damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer -codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment. - -*1.F.2.* LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg(tm) trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg(tm) electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal fees. -YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, -BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE PROVIDED IN -PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND -ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR -ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES -EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. - -*1.F.3.* LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium with -your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you with -the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in lieu of a -refund. If you received the work electronically, the person or entity -providing it to you may choose to give you a second opportunity to -receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If the second copy -is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing without further -opportunities to fix the problem. - -*1.F.4.* Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS,' WITH NO OTHER -WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO -WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -*1.F.5.* Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages. -If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the -law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be -interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted by -the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any -provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions. - -*1.F.6.* INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works in accordance -with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the production, -promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic works, -harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, including legal fees, -that arise directly or indirectly from any of the following which you do -or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg(tm) -work, (b) alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any -Project Gutenberg(tm) work, and (c) any Defect you cause. - - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg(tm) - - -Project Gutenberg(tm) is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of computers -including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It exists -because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations from -people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need, is critical to reaching Project Gutenberg(tm)'s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg(tm) collection will remain -freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure and -permanent future for Project Gutenberg(tm) and future generations. To -learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and -how your efforts and donations can help, see Sections 3 and 4 and the -Foundation web page at http://www.pglaf.org . - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive -Foundation - - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the state -of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal Revenue -Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification number is -64-6221541. Its 501(c)(3) letter is posted at -http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/pglaf . Contributions to the -Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the -full extent permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is located at 4557 Melan Dr. -S. Fairbanks, AK, 99712., but its volunteers and employees are scattered -throughout numerous locations. Its business office is located at 809 -North 1500 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887, email -business@pglaf.org. Email contact links and up to date contact -information can be found at the Foundation's web site and official page -at http://www.pglaf.org - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - - -Project Gutenberg(tm) depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations where -we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make any -statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from outside -the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other ways -including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To donate, -please visit: http://www.gutenberg.org/fundraising/donate - - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg(tm) electronic -works. - - -Professor Michael S. Hart is the originator of the Project Gutenberg(tm) -concept of a library of electronic works that could be freely shared -with anyone. For thirty years, he produced and distributed Project -Gutenberg(tm) eBooks with only a loose network of volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg(tm) eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as Public Domain in the U.S. unless -a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not necessarily keep eBooks -in compliance with any particular paper edition. - -Each eBook is in a subdirectory of the same number as the eBook's eBook -number, often in several formats including plain vanilla ASCII, -compressed (zipped), HTML and others. - -Corrected _editions_ of our eBooks replace the old file and take over -the old filename and etext number. The replaced older file is renamed. -_Versions_ based on separate sources are treated as new eBooks receiving -new filenames and etext numbers. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search facility: - - http://www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg(tm), -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. |