{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_38273/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_38273","id":"gutenberg_38273","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/38273","summary":null,"tags":["Bible -- Examinations, questions, etc.","Bible -- Miscellanea","Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Law & Criminology","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Pornography -- Law and legislation"],"text":"Produced by Chris Curnow, Jana Srna and the Online\nDistributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This\nfile was produced from images generously made available\nby The Internet Archive)\n\n\n\n\n\n\n  [ Transcriber's Notes:\n\n    Every effort has been made to replicate this text as faithfully\n    as possible, including inconsistencies in spelling and hyphenation.\n    Some corrections of spelling and punctuation have been made. They\n    are listed at the end of the text.\n\n    Italic text has been marked with _underscores_.\n  ]\n\n\n\n\n  IS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?\n\n  BY\n  ANNIE BESANT.\n\n  BEING AN ENQUIRY WHETHER THE BIBLE COMES\n  WITHIN THE RULING OF THE LORD CHIEF\n  JUSTICE AS TO OBSCENE LITERATURE.\n\n\n  LONDON:\n  FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,\n  28, Stonecutter Street, E.C.\n\n  PRICE TWOPENCE.\n\n\n\n\n  LONDON:\n  PRINTED BY ANNIE BESANT AND CHARLES BRADLAUGH,\n  28, STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.\n\n\n\n\nIS THE BIBLE INDICTABLE?\n\nAN ENQUIRY WHETHER THE BIBLE COMES WITHIN THE RULING OF THE LORD CHIEF\nJUSTICE AS TO OBSCENE LITERATURE.\n\n\nThe ruling of Sir Alexander Cockburn in the late trial, the Queen\n_against_ Bradlaugh and Besant, seems to involve wider issues than the\nLord Chief Justice intended, or than the legal ally of Nature and\nProvidence can desire. The question of motive is entirely set on one\nside; the purest motives are valueless if the information conveyed is\nsuch as is capable of being turned to bad purposes by the evil-minded\nand the corrupt. This view of the law would not be enforced against\nexpensive medical works; provided that the price set on a book be such\nas shall keep it out of reach of the \"common people,\" its teaching may\nbe thoroughly immoral but it is not obscene. Dr. Fleetwood Churchill,\nfor instance, is not committing an indictable offence by giving\ndirections as to the simplest and easiest way of procuring abortion; he\nis not committing a misdemeanour, although he points out means which any\nwoman could obtain and use for herself; he does not place himself within\nreach of the law, although he recommends the practice of abortion in all\ncases where previous experience proves that the birth of a living child\nis impossible. A check to population which destroys life is thus passed\nover as legal, perhaps because the destruction of life is the check so\nlargely employed by Nature and Providence, and would thus ensure the\napproval of the Solicitor-General. But the real reason why Dr. Churchill\nis left unmolested and Dr. Knowlton is assailed, lies in the difference\nof the price at which the two are severally published. If Dr. Knowlton\nwas sold at 10s. 6d. and Dr. Churchill at 6d., then the vials of legal\nwrath would have descended on the advocate of abortion and not on the\nteacher of prevention. The obscenity lies, to a great extent, in the\nprice of the book sold. A vulgar little sixpence is obscene, a dainty\nhalf-sovereign is respectable. Poor people must be content to remain\nignorant, or to buy the injurious quack treatises circulated in secret;\nwealthier people, who want knowledge less, are to be protected by the\nlaw in their purchases of medical works, but if poor people, in sore\nneed, finding \"an undoubted physician\" ready to aid them, venture to ask\nfor his work, written especially for them, the law strikes down those\nwho sell them health and happiness. They must not complain; Nature and\nProvidence have placed them in a state of poverty, and have mercifully\nprovided for them effectual, if painful, checks to population. The same\nelement of price rules the decency or the indecency of pictures. A\npicture painted in oils, life size, of the naked human figure, such as\nVenus disrobed for the bath, or Phryne before her judges, or Perseus and\nAndromeda, exhibited to the upper classes, in a gallery, with a shilling\nadmission charge, is a perfectly decent and respectable work of art.\nPhotographs of those pictures, uncoloured, and reduced in size, are\nobscene publications, and are seized as such by the police. Cheapness\nis, therefore, an essential part of obscenity.\n\nIf a book be cheap, what constitutes it an obscene book? Lord Campbell,\nadvocating in Parliament the Act against obscene literature which bears\nhis name, laid down very clearly his view of what should, legally, be an\nobscene work. It must be a work \"written for the single purpose of\ncorrupting the morals of youth, and of a nature calculated to shock the\nfeelings of decency in any well-regulated mind\" (Hansard, vol. 146,\nNo. 2, p. 329). The law, according to him, was never to be levelled even\nagainst works which might be considered immoral and indecent, such as\nsome of those of Dryden, Congreve, or Rochester. \"The keeping, or the\nreading, or the delighting in such things must be left to taste, and was\nnot a subject for legal interference;\" the law was only to interpose\nwhere the motive of the seller was bad; \"when there were people who\ndesignedly and industriously manufactured books and prints with the\nintention of corrupting the public morals, and when they succeeded in\ntheir infamous purpose, he thought it was necessary for the legislature\nto interpose\" (Hansard, vol. 146, No. 4, p. 865).\n\nThe ruling of the present Lord Chief Justice in the late trial is in\ndirect opposition to the view taken by Lord Campbell. The chief says:\n\"Knowlton goes into physiological details connected with the functions\nof the generation and procreation of children. The principles of this\npamphlet, with its details, are to be found in greater abundance and\ndistinctness in numerous works to which your attention has been\ndirected, and, having these details before you, you must judge for\nyourselves whether there is anything in them which is calculated to\nexcite the passions of man and debase the public morals. If so, every\nmedical work is open to the same imputation\" (Trial, p. 261). The Lord\nChief Justice then refers to the very species of book against which Lord\nCampbell said that he directed his Act. \"There are books,\" the chief\nsays, \"which have for their purpose the exciting of libidinous thoughts,\nand are intended to give to persons who take pleasure in that sort of\nthing the impure gratification which the contemplation of such thoughts\nis calculated to give.\" If the book were of that character it \"would be\ncondemnable,\" and so far all are agreed as to the law. But Sir Alexander\nCockburn goes further, and here is the danger of his interpretation of\nthe law: \"Though the intention is not unduly to convey this knowledge,\nand gratify prurient and libidinous thoughts, still, if its effect is to\nexcite and create thoughts of so demoralising a character to the mind of\nthe reader, the work is open to the condemnation asked for at your\nhands\" (Trial, p. 261). Its effect on what reader? Suppose a person of\nprurient mind buys Dr. Carpenter's \"Human Physiology,\" and reads the\nlong chapter, containing over 100 pages, wholly devoted to a minute\ndescription of generation; the effect of the reading will be \"to excite\nand create thoughts of\" the \"demoralising character\" spoken of.\nAccording to the Lord Chief Justice's ruling, Dr. Carpenter's would then\nbecome an obscene book. The evil motive is transferred from the buyer to\nthe seller, and then the seller is punished for the buyer's bad intent;\nvicarious punishment seems to have passed from the church into the law\ncourt. There can be no doubt that every medical book now comes under the\nhead of \"obscene literature,\" for they may all be read by impure people,\nand will infallibly have the effect of arousing prurient thoughts; that\nthey are written for a good purpose, that they are written to cure\ndisease, is no excuse; the motive of the writer must not be considered;\nthe law has decided that books whose intention is to convey\nphysiological knowledge, and that not unduly, are obscene, if the\nreader's passions chance to be aroused by them; \"we must not listen to\narguments upon moral obligations arising out of any motive, or out of\nany desire to benefit humanity, or to do good to your species\" (Trial,\np. 237). The only protection of these, otherwise obscene, books lies in\ntheir price; they are generally highly-priced, and they do thus lack one\nessential element of obscenity. For the useful book that bad people make\nharmful must be cheap in order to be practically obscene; it must be\nwithin reach of the poor, and be \"capable of being sold at the corners\nof the streets, and at bookstalls, to every one who has sixpence to\nspare\" (Trial, p. 261).\n\nThe new ruling touches all the dramatists and writers that Lord Campbell\nhad no idea of attacking; no one can doubt that many of Congreve's\ndramas are calculated to arouse sexual passion; these are sold at a very\nlow price, and they have not even the defence of conveying any useful\ninformation; they come most distinctly within the ruling of the Lord\nChief Justice; why are they to be permitted free circulation? Sterne,\nFielding, Smollett, Swift, must all be flung into the dusthole after\nCongreve, Wycherley, Jonson; Dryden, of course, follows these without\ndelay, and Spencer, with his \"Faerie Queene,\" is the next victim.\nShakespeare can have no quarter shown him; not only are most gross\npassages scattered through his works, but the motive of some of them is\ndirectly calculated to arouse the passions; for how many youthful love\nfevers is not \"Romeo and Juliet\" answerable; what of \"Cymbeline,\"\n\"Pericles,\" or \"Titus Andronicus\"? Can \"Venus and Adonis\" tend to\nanything except to the rousing of passion? is \"Lucrece\" not obscene? Yet\nMacmillan's Globe Edition of Shakespeare is regarded as one of the most\nadmirable publishing efforts made by that eminent firm to put English\nmasterpieces in the hands of the poor. Coming to our time, what is to be\ndone with Byron? \"Don Juan\" is surely calculated to corrupt, not to\nspeak of other poems, such as \"Parisina.\" What of Shelley, with his\n\"Cenci?\" Swinburne, must of course, be burned at once. Every one of\nthese great names is now branded as obscene, and, under the ruling of\nthe Lord Chief Justice every one of them must be condemned. Suppose some\none should follow Hetherington's example? Suppose that we should become\nthe prosecutors instead of the prosecuted? Suppose that we should drag\nothers to share our prison, and should bring the most honoured names of\nauthors into the same condemnation that has struck us? Why should we\nshow to others a consideration that has not been shown to us? If it is\nsaid that we should not strike, we answer; \"Then leave _us_ alone, and\ncalculate the consequences before you touch us again.\" The law has been\ndeclared by the Lord Chief Justice of England; why is not that law as\nbinding on Macmillan as on us? The law has been narrowed in order to\nenmesh Freethought: its net will catch other fishes as well, or else\nbreak under the strain and let all go free. The Christians desire to\nmake two laws, and show their hands too plainly: one law is to be\nstrict, and is to apply wholly to Freethinkers; cheating Christians, who\nsell even Knowlton, are to be winked at by the authorities, and are to\nbe let off scot free; but this is not all. Ritualists circulate a book\nbeside which Knowlton is said to be purity itself, and the law does not\ntouch them; no warrants are issued for their apprehension; no\nprosecution is paid for by a hidden enemy; no law-officer of the Crown\nis briefed against them. Why is this? because to attack Christians is to\ndraw attention to the foundation of Christianity; because to attack the\n\"Priest in Absolution\" is to attack Moses. The Christian walls are made\nout of Bible-glass, and they fear to throw stones lest they should break\ntheir own house. Listen to Mr. Ridsdale, a brother of the Holy Cross: \"I\nwonder,\" he says, \"why some one does not stand up in the House of Lords\nand bring a charge against the Bible (especially Leviticus) as an\nimmoral book.\" The _Church Times_, the organ of the Ritualists, has a\nletter which runs thus: \"Suppose a patrician and a pontifex in old Rome\nhad with care and deliberation extracted sentences from Holy Writ,\nseparated them from their context, suppressed the general nature and\ncharacter of the book, and then accused the bishop and his clergy of\ndeliberately preparing an obscene book to contaminate the young (how\nreadily he might have made such extracts!), what should we have said of\nsuch ruffians?\" This, then, is the shield of the clergy; the Bible is\nitself so obscene that Christians fear to prosecute priests who\ncirculate obscenity.\n\nDoes the Bible come within the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice as to\nobscene literature? Most decidedly it does, and if prosecuted as an\nobscene book, it must necessarily be condemned, if the law is justly\nadministered. Every Christian ought therefore to range himself on our\nside, and demand a reversal of the present rule, for under it his own\nsacred book is branded as obscene, and may be prosecuted as such by any\nunbeliever.\n\nFirst, the book is widely circulated at a low price. If the Bible were\nrestricted in its circulation by being sold at 10s. 6d. or a guinea, it\nmight escape being placed in the category of obscene literature under\nthe present ruling. But no such defence can be pleaded for it. It is\nsold at 8d. a copy, printed on cheap paper, and strongly bound, for use\nin schools; it is given away by thousands among the \"common people,\"\nwhose morals are now so carefully looked after in the matter of books;\nit is presented to little children of both sexes, and they are told to\nread it carefully. To such an extent is this carried, that some\nthousands of children assembled together were actually told by Lord\nSandon, the Vice-President of the Committee of Council on Education, to\nread the Bible right through from beginning to end, and were bidden not\nto pick and choose. The element of price is clearly against the Bible if\nit be proved to have in it anything which is of a nature calculated to\nsuggest impure thoughts.\n\nAs to the motives of the writers, we need not trouble about them. The\nlaw now says that intention is nothing, and no desire to do good is any\nexcuse for obscenity (Trial, p. 257).\n\nThere remains the vital question: is the effect of some of its passages\nto excite and create demoralising thoughts? (Trial, p. 261).\n\nThe difficulty of dealing with this question is that many of the\nquotations necessary to prove that the Bible comes under the ruling of\nthe Lord Chief Justice are of such an extremely coarse and disgusting\ncharacter, that it is really impossible to reproduce them without\nintensifying the evil which they are calculated to do. While I see no\nindecency in a plain statement of physiological facts, written for\npeople's instruction, I do see indecency in coarse and indelicate\nstories, the reading of which can do no good to any human being, and can\nhave no effect save that of corrupting the mind and suggesting unclean\nideas. I therefore refuse to soil my pages with quotations, and content\nmyself with giving the references, so that anyone who desires to use the\nruling of the Lord Chief Justice to suppress the Bible may see what\ncertainty of success awaits him if justice be done. I shall not trouble\nabout simple coarseness, such as Gen. iv. 1, 17, 25; Gen. vi. 4; or\nMatt. i. 18-20, 25. If mere coarseness of expression were to be noted,\nmy task would be endless. But let the intending prosecutor read the\nfollowing passages. A little boy of 8 or 10 would scarcely be improved\nby reading Gen. ix. 20-25; the drunkenness, indecency, and swearing in\nthese six verses is surely calculated to corrupt the boy's mind. The\nteaching of Gen. xvi. 1-5 is scarcely elevating for the \"common people,\"\nseeing the example set by the \"friend of God.\" Gen. xvii. 10-14 and\n23-27 is very coarse. Would Gen. xix. 4-9 improve a young maiden, or\nwould it not suggest the most impure thoughts, verse 5 dealing with an\nidea that should surely never be put into a girl's mind? The same\nchapter, 30-38, is revolting; and Deut. ii. 9 and 19 implies God's\napproval of the unnatural crime. The ignorance of physiology which is\nthought best for girls would receive a shock, when in reading the Bible\nstraight through, the day's portion comprised Gen. xxv., 21-26. Gen.\nxxvi., 8 is not nice, nor is Gen. xxix., 21-35, and Gen. xxx. The story\nof Dinah, Gen. xxxiv.; of Reuben, Gen. xxxv., 22; of Onan, Gen.\nxxxviii., 8-10; of Judah and Tamar, xxxviii., 13-26; of the birth of\nTamar's children, xxxviii., 27-30, are all revolting in their foulness\nof phraseology. Why the Bible should be allowed to tell the story of\nOnan seems very strange, and the \"righteousness\" of Tamar (v. 26) wins\napproval. Is this thought purifying teaching for the \"common people\"?\nThe story of Joseph and Potiphar's wife, Gen. xxxix., 7-18, I have heard\nread in church to the manifest discomfort of some of the congregation,\nand the amusement of others, while Joseph flying from temptation and\nleaving his garment with Potiphar's wife is a picture often seen in\nSunday schools. Thus twelve out of the fifty chapters of Genesis are\nundeniably obscene, and if there is any justice in England, Genesis\nought to be suppressed. We pass to Exodus. Ex. i., 15-19 is surely\nindecent. I am not dealing with immoral teaching, or God's blessing on\nthe falsehood of the midwives (20, 21) would need comment. Ex. iv.,\n24-26, is very coarse; so also Ex. xxii., 16, 17, 19. Leviticus is\ncoarse throughout, but is especially so in chaps. v., 3; xii.; xv.;\nxviii., 6-23; xx., 10-21; xxii., 3-5. The trial of jealousy is most\nrevolting in Numb. v., 12-29. Numb. xxv., 6-8 is hardly a nice story for\na child, nor is that of Numb. xxxi., 17, 18. Deut. xxi., 10-14 is not\npure teaching for soldiers. Deut. xxii., 13-21 is extremely coarse; the\nremainder of the chapter comes also within the Chief's ruling, as do\nalso chaps. xxiii., 1, 10, 11; xxv., 11, 12; xxvii., 20, 22, 23;\nxxviii., 57. The fault of the book of Joshua lies chiefly in its\nexceeding brutality and bloodthirstiness, but it, also, does not quite\nescape the charge of obscenity, as may be seen by referring to the\nfollowing passage: chap. v., 2-8. Judges is occasionally very foul, and\nis utterly unfit for general reading, according to the late definition;\nEhud and Eglon, Judges, iii., 15-25, would not bear reading aloud, and\nthe story might have been told equally well in decent language. Or take\nthe horribly disgusting tale of the Levite and his concubine (Judges\nxix.), and then judge whether a book containing such stories is fit for\nuse in schools. Dr. Carpenter's book may do good there, because, with\nall its plain speaking, it conveys useful information; but what\ngood--mental, physical, or moral--can be done to a young girl by reading\nJudges xix.? And the harm done is intensified by the fact that the\nignorance in which girls are kept surrounds such a story with\nunwholesome interest, as giving a glimpse into what is, to them, the\ngreat mystery of sex. The story of Ruth iii. 3-14 is one which we should\nnot like to see repeated by our daughters; for the virtue of a woman who\nshould wait until a man was drunk, and then go alone at night and lie\ndown at his feet, would, in our days, be regarded as problematical. 1\nSam. ii. 22, and v. 9 are both obscene; so are 1 Sam. xviii. 25-27 and\nxxi. 4, 5. 1 Sam. xxv. 22, 34 are disgustingly coarse, and there are\nmany similar coarse passages to be found in \"holy\" writ. 2 Sam. vi. 14,\n16, 20, is a little over-suggestive, as is also 2 Sam. x. 4. The story\nof David dancing is told in 1 Chron. xv. 27-29 without anything\noffensive in its tone. The story of David and Bathsheba is only too well\nknown, and as told in 2 Sam. xi. 2-13 is far more calculated to arouse\nthe passions than is anything in Knowlton. The prophecy in 2 Sam. xii.\n11, 12, fulfilled in xvi. 21, 22, is repulsive in the extreme, more\nespecially when we are told that the shameful counsel was given by\nAhithophel, whose counsel, \"which he counselled in those days, was as if\na man had inquired at the oracle of God.\" If God's oracles give such\ncounsel, the less they are resorted to the better for the welfare of the\nstate. We are next given the odious story of Amnon and Tamar (2 Sam.\nxiii. 1-22), instructive for Lord Sandon's boys and girls to read\ntogether, as they go through the Bible from beginning to end. 1 Kings i.\n1-4 conveys an idea more worthy of George IV. than of the man after\nGod's own heart. In 1 Kings xiv. 10, the coarseness is inexcusable, and\nverse 24 is only too intelligible after Judges xix. 2 Kings ix. 8,\nxviii. 27, are thoroughly Biblical in their delicacy. 1 Chron. xix. 4\nrepeats the unpleasant story of 2 Sam. x. 4; but both 1 and 2 Chronicles\nare, for the Bible, remarkably free from coarseness, and are a great\nimprovement on the books of Kings and Samuel. The same praise is\ndeserved by Ezra and Nehemiah. The tone of the story of Esther is\nsomewhat sensual throughout: the drunken king commanding Vashti to come\nin and show her beauty, Esther i. 11; the search for the young virgins,\nEsther ii. 2-4; the trial and choice, Esther ii. 12-17, these are\nscarcely elevating reading; Esther vii. 8 is also coarse. To a girl\nwhose safety is in her ignorance, Job iii. 11 is very plain. Psalm\nxxxviii. 5-7 gives a description of a certain class of disease in exact\nterms. Proverbs v. 17-20 is good advice, but would be condemned by the\nLord Chief Justice; Proverbs vi. 24-32 is of the same character, as is\nalso Proverbs vii. 5-23. The allusion in Ecclesiastes xi. 5 would be\nobjected to as improper by the Solicitor-General.\n\nThe Song of Solomon is a marriage-song of the sensual and luxuriant\ncharacter: put Knowlton side by side with it, and then judge which is\nmost calculated to arouse the passions. It is almost impossible to\nselect, where all is of so extreme a character, but take i. 2, 13; ii.\n4-6, 17; iii. 1, 4; iv. 5, 6, 11; v. 2-4, 8, 14-16; vii. 2, 3, 6-10, 12;\nviii. 1-3, 8-10. Could any language be more alluring, more seductive,\nmore passion-rousing, than the languid, uxorious, \"linked sweetness long\ndrawn out\" of this Eastern marriage-ode? It is not vulgarly coarse and\noffensive as is so much of the Bible, but it is, according to the ruling\nof the Lord Chief Justice, a very obscene poem. One may add that, in\naddition to the allusions and descriptions that lie on the surface,\nthere is a multitude of suggestions not so apparent, but which are\nthoroughly open to all who know anything of Eastern imagery.\n\nAfter the Song of Solomon, it is a shock to come to the prophets; it is\nlike plunging into cold water after being in a hothouse. Unfortunately,\nwith the more bracing atmosphere, we find the old brutality coming again\nto repel us, and coarse denunciation shocks us, as in Isaiah iii. 17.\nHow would the Lord Chief Justice have dealt with Isaiah if he had lived\nin his day, and acted as is recorded in Isaiah xx., 2-4? He clearly\nwould have put him in a lunatic asylum (Trial, p. 168). If it were not\nthat there are so many worse passages, one might complain of the taste\nshown in the comparison of Isaiah xxvi. 17, 18; the same may be said of\nIsaiah xxxii. 11, 12. In Isaiah xxxvi. 12 we have a repetition of 2\nKings xviii. 27, which we could well have spared. In Isaiah lvii. 8, 9,\nwe meet a favourite simile of the Jewish prophets, wherein God is\ncompared to a husband, and the people to an unfaithful wife, and the\nrelations between them are described with a minuteness which can only be\nfitly designated by the Solicitor-General's favourite word. Isaiah lxvi.\n7-12 would be regarded as somewhat coarse in an ordinary book. The\nprophets get worse as they go on. Jeremiah i. 5 is the first verse we\nmeet in Jeremiah which the Solicitor-General would take exception to. We\nnext meet the simile of marriage, in Jeremiah ii., 20, iii. 1-3, 6-9,\nverse 9 being especially offensive. Jer. v. 7, 8, is coarse, as are also\nJer. xi. 15 and xiii. 26, 27. Ought the girls' schools to read Jer. xx.\n17, 18? But, perhaps, as Ezekiel is coming, it is hypercritical to\nobject to Jeremiah. Lamentations i. 8, 9, is revolting, and verse 17 of\nthe same chapter uses an extremely coarse simile. Ezekiel is the prophet\nwho ate a little book and found it disagree with him: it seems a pity\nthat he did not eat a large part of his own, and so prevent it from\npoisoning other people. What can be more disgusting than Ez. iv. 12-15?\nthe whole chapter is absurd, but these verses are abominable. The\nprophet seems, like the drawers of the indictment against us, to take\npleasure in piling up uncomfortable terms, as in Ez. vi. 9. We now come\nto a chapter that is obscene from beginning to end, and may, I think,\nalmost claim the palm of foulness. Let any one read through Ez. xvi.,\nmarking especially verses 4-9, 15-17, 25, 26, 33, 34, 37, 39, and then\nthink of the absurdity of prosecuting Knowlton for corrupting the morals\nof the young, who have this book of Ezekiel put into their hand. After\nthis, Ez. xviii. 6, 11, and 15 seem quite chaste and delicate; and no\none could object to Ez. xxii. 9-11. Ez. xxiii. is almost as bad as\nchapter xvi., especially verses 6-9, 14-21, 29, 41-44. Surely if any\nbook be indictable for obscenity, the Bible should be the first to be\nprosecuted. I know of no other book in which is to be found such utterly\nunredeemed coarseness. The rest of Ezekiel is only bloodthirsty and\nbrutal, so may, fortunately, be passed over without further comment.\nDaniel may be left unnoticed; and we now come to Hosea, a prophet whose\nmorals were, to speak gently, peculiar. The \"beginning of the word of\nthe Lord by Hosea,\" was the Lord's command as to his marriage, related\nin Hosea i. 2; we then hear of his children by the said wife in the\nremainder of the chapter, and in the next chapter we are told, Hosea ii.\n2, that the woman is not his wife, and from verse 2-13 we have an\nextremely indecent speech of Hosea on the misdeeds of the unfortunate\ncreature he married, wherein, verse 4, he complains of the very fact\nthat God commanded in chap. i. 2. Hosea iii. 1-3 relates another\nindecent proceeding on Hosea's part, and his purchase of another\nmistress; whether girls' morals are improved by the contemplation of\nsuch divine commands, is a question that might fairly be urged on Lord\nSandon before he next distributes Bibles to little children of both\nsexes. The said girls must surely, as they study Hosea iv. 10-18, wonder\nthat God expresses his intention not to punish impurity in verse 14. It\nis impossible, in reading Hosea, to escape from the prevailing tone of\nobscenity; chaps. v. 3, 4, 7; vi. 9, 10; vii. 4; viii. 9; ix. 1, 10, 11,\n14, 16; xii. 3; xiii. 13, every one of these has a thought in it that\nall must regard as coarse, and which comes distinctly within the ruling\nof the Lord Chief Justice as to obscenity; there is scarcely one chapter\nin Hosea that does not, with offensive reiteration, dwell on the\ncoarsest form of wrongdoing of which women are capable. Joel iii. 3 is\nobjectionable in a comparatively slight degree. Amos, although\noccasionally coarse, keeps clear of the gross obscenity of Hosea, as do\nalso Obadiah and Jonah. Micah i. 7, 8, 11, would scarcely be passed by\nSir Hardinge Giffard, nor would he approve Micah iv. 9, 10. Nahum iii.\n4-6 is almost Hoseatic, and Habakkuk ii. 5, 16 runs it close. The\nremaining four prophets are sometimes coarse, but have nothing in them\napproaching the abominations of the others, and we close the Old\nTestament with a sigh of relief.\n\nThe New Testament has in it nothing at all approaching the obscenity of\nthe Old, save two passages in Revelation. The story of Mary and Joseph\nis somewhat coarse, especially as told in Matt. i. 18-25. Rom. i. 24-27\nis distinctly obscene, and 1 Cor. v. 1, vi. 9, 15, 16, 18, would all be\njudged indelicate by Her Majesty's Solicitor-General, who objected to\nthe warnings given by Knowlton against sexual sin. The whole of 1 Cor.\nvii. might be thought calculated to arouse the passions, but the rest of\nPaul's Epistles may pass, in spite of many coarse passages, such as 1\nThess. iv. 3-7. Heb. xiii. 4 and 2 Peter ii. 10-18 both come into the\nsame category, but it is useless to delay on simple coarseness.\nRevelation slips into the old prophetic indecency; Rev. ii. 20-22 and\nxvii. 1-4 are almost worthy of Ezekiel.\n\nCan anyone go through all these passages and have any doubt that the\nBible--supposing it to be unprotected by statute--is indictable as an\nobscene book under the ruling of the Lord Chief Justice? It is idle to\nplead that the writers do not approve the evil deeds they chronicle, and\nthat it is only in two or three cases that God appears to endorse the\nsin; no purity of motives on the writers' parts can be admitted in\nexcuse (Trial, p. 257). These sensuous stories and obscene parables come\ndirectly under the censure of the Lord Chief Justice, and I invite our\npolice authorities to show their sense of justice by prosecuting the\npeople who circulate this indictable book, thereby doing all that in\nthem lies to vitiate and corrupt the morals of the young. If they will\nnot do this, in common decency they ought to drop the prosecution\nagainst us for selling the \"Fruits of Philosophy.\"\n\nThe right way would be to prosecute none of these books. All that I have\nintended to do in drawing attention to the \"obscene\" passages in the\nBible, is to show that to deal with the sexual relations with a good\nobject--as is presumably that of the Bible--should not be an indictable\nmisdemeanour. I do not urge that the Bible should be prosecuted: I do\nurge that it is indictable under the present ruling; and I plead,\nfurther, that this very fact shows how the present ruling is against the\npublic weal. Nothing could be more unfortunate than to have a large crop\nof prosecutions against the standard writers of old times and of the\npresent day, and yet this is what is likely to happen, unless some stop\nis put to the stupid and malicious prosecution against ourselves. With\none voice, the press of the country--omitting the _Englishman_--has\ncondemned the \"foolish\" verdict and the \"vindictive\" sentence. When that\nsentence is carried out, the real battle will begin, and the blame of\nthe loss and the trouble that will ensue must rest on those who started\nthis prosecution, and on those who shield the hidden prosecutor. The\nChristians, at least, ought to join with us in reversing the ruling of\nthe Lord Chief Justice, since their own sacred book is one of those most\neasily assailable. The purity that depends on ignorance is a fragile\npurity; the chastity that depends on ignorance is a fragile chastity; to\nbuttress up ignorance with prison and fine is a fatal policy; and I call\non those who love freedom and desire knowledge, to join with us in\nover-ruling by statute the new judge-made law.\n\n\n\n\n  [ Transcriber's Note:\n\n    The following is a list of corrections made to the original.\n    The first line is the original line, the second the corrected one.\n\n  description of generation; the affect of the reading will be \"to excite\n  description of generation; the effect of the reading will be \"to excite\n\n  Jer. xi. 15 and xiii. 26, 27. Ought the girl's schools to read Jer. xx.\n  Jer. xi. 15 and xiii. 26, 27. Ought the girls' schools to read Jer. xx.\n\n  who eat a little book and found it disagree with him: it seems a pity\n  who ate a little book and found it disagree with him: it seems a pity\n\n  over-ruling by statute the new judge-made law\n  over-ruling by statute the new judge-made law.\n\n  ]","title":"Is the Bible Indictable?: Being an Enquiry whether the Bible Comes within the Ruling of the Lord Chief Justice as to Obscene Literature","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":5536}