{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_39266/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_39266","id":"gutenberg_39266","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/39266","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Free thought","Rationalism"],"text":"Produced by David Widger.\n\n\n\n\n                          *THEOLOGICAL ESSAYS*\n\n\n                                  _By_\n\n                          *Charles Bradlaugh*\n\n\n                                _London_\n\n                                 _1895_\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\n    HERESY: ITS UTILITY AND MORALITY\n    Chapter I. Introductory\n    Chapter II. The Sixteenth Century\n    Chapter III. The Seventeenth Century\n    Chapter IV. The Eighteenth Century\n    HUMANITY'S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF\n    SUPERNATURAL AND RATIONAL MORALITY\n    HAS MAN A SOUL?\n    IS THERE A GOD\n    A PLEA FOR ATHEISM\n    A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE DEVIL\n    WERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS?\n    NEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM\n    NEW LIFE OF JACOB\n    NEW LIFE OF MOSES\n    NEW LIFE OF DAVID\n    A NEW LIFE OF JONAH\n    WHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?\n    WHAT DID JESUS TEACH?\n    THE TWELVE APOSTLES\n    THE ATONEMENT\n    WHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?\n    MR. GLADSTONE IN REPLY TO COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY\n    A FEW WORDS ON THE CHRISTIANS' CREED\n\n\n\n\nHERESY: ITS UTILITY AND MORALITY\n\n\n\n\nChapter I. Introductory\n\n\nWHAT is heresy that it should be so heavily punished? Why is it that\nsociety will condone many offences, pardon many vicious practices, and\nyet have such scant mercy for the open heretic, who is treated as though\nhe were some horrid monster to be feared, hated, and, if possible,\nexterminated? Most religionists, instead of endeavoring with kindly\nthought to provide some solution for the difficulties propounded by\ntheir heretical brethren, indiscriminately confound all inquirers in one\ncommon category of censure; their views are dismissed with ridicule as\nsophistical and fallacious, abused as infinitely dangerous, themselves\ndenounced as heretics and infidels, and libelled as scoffers and\nAtheists. With some religionists all heretics are Atheists. With the\nPope of Rome, Garibaldi and Mazzini were Atheists. With the Religious\nTract Society, Voltaire and Paine were Atheists. Yet in none of the\nabove-named cases is the allegation true. Voltaire and Paine were\nheretics, but both were Theists. Garibaldi and Mazzini were heretics,\nbut neither of them was an Atheist, though the latter had given color to\nthe description by accepting the presidency of an Atheistical society.\nWith few exceptions, the heretics of one generation become the revered\nsaints of a period less than twenty generations later. Lord Bacon, in\nhis own age, was charged with Atheism, Sir Isaac Newton with\nSocinianism, the famous Tillotson was actually charged with Atheism, and\nDr. Burnet wrote vigorously against the commonly received traditions of\nthe fall and deluge. There are but few men of the past of whom the\nchurch boasts to-day, who have not at some time been pointed at as\nheretics by orthodox antagonists excited by party rancor. Heresy is in\nitself neither Atheism nor Theism, neither the rejection of the Church\nof Rome, nor of Canterbury, nor of Constantinople; heresy is not\nnecessarily of any-ist or-ism. The heretic is one who has selected his\nown opinions, or whose opinions are the result of some mental effort;\nand he differs from others who are orthodox in this:--they hold opinions\nwhich are often only the bequest of an earlier generation\nunquestioningly accepted; he has escaped from the customary grooves of\nconventional acquiescence, and sought truth outside the channels\nsanctified by habit.\n\nMen and women who are orthodox are generally so for the same reason that\nthey are English or French--they were born in England or France, and\ncannot help the good or ill fortune of their birthplace. Their orthodoxy\nis no higher virtue than their nationality. Men are good and true of\nevery nation and of every faith; but there are more good and true men in\nnations where civilisation has made progress, and amongst faiths which\nhave been modified by high humanising influences. Men are good not\nbecause of their orthodoxy, but in spite of it; their goodness is the\noutgrowth of their humanity, not of their orthodoxy. Heresy is necessary\nto progress; heresy in religion always precedes endeavor for political\nfreedom. You cannot have effectual political progress without\nwide-spread heretical thought. Every grand political change in which the\npeople have played an important part has been preceded by the\npopularisation of heresy in the immediately earlier generations.\n\nFortunately, ignorant men cannot be real heretics, so that education\nmust be hand-maiden to heresy. Ignorance and superstition are twin\nsisters. Belief too often means nothing more than prostration of the\nintellect on the threshold of the unknown. Heresy is the pioneer, erect\nand manly, striding over the forbidden line in his search for truth.\nHeterodoxy develops the intellect, orthodoxy smothers it. Heresy is the\nstar twinkle in the night, orthodoxy the cloud which hides this faint\ngleam of light from the weary travellers on life's encumbered pathway.\nOrthodoxy was well exemplified in the dark middle ages, when the mass of\nmen and women believed much and knew little, when miracles were common\nand schools were rare, and when the monasteries on the hill tops held\nthe literature of Europe. Heresy speaks for itself in this nineteenth\ncentury, with the gas and electric light, with cheap newspapers, with a\nthousand lecture rooms, with innumerable libraries, and at least a\nmajority of the people able to read the thoughts the dead have left, as\nwell as to listen to the words the living utter.\n\nThe word heretic ought to be a term of honor; for honest, clearly\nuttered heresy is always virtuous, and this whether truth or error; yet\nit is not difficult to understand how the charge of heresy has been\ngenerally used as a means of exciting bad feeling. The Greek word\n[--Greek--] which is in fact our word heresy, signifies simply selection\nor choice. The heretic philosopher was the one who had searched and\nfound, who, not content with the beaten paths, had selected a new road,\nchosen a new fashion of travelling in the march for that happiness all\nhuman-kind are seeking.\n\nHeretics are usually called \"infidels,\" but no word could be more\nunfairly applied, if by it is meant anything more than that the heretic\ndoes not conform to the State faith. If it meant those who do not\nprofess the faith, then there would be no objection, but it is more\noften used of those who are unfaithful, and then it is generally a\nlibel. Mahomedans and Christians both call Jews infidels, and Mahomedans\nand Christians call each other infidels. Each religionist is thus an\ninfidel to all sects but his own; there is but one degree of heresy\nbetween him and the heretic who rejects all churches. Each ordinary\northodox man is a heretic to every religion in the world except one, but\nhe is heretic from the accident of birth without the virtue of true\nheresy.\n\nIn our own country heresy is not confined to the extreme platform\nadopted as a standing-point by such a man as myself. It is rife even in\nthe state-sustained Church of England, and to show this one does not\nneed to be content with such illustrations as are afforded by the\nEssayists and Reviewers, who discover the sources of the world's\neducation rather in Greece and Italy than in Judea; who reject the\nalleged prophecies as evidence of the Messianic character of Jesus; who\nadmit that in nature and from nature, by science and by reason, we\nneither have, nor can possibly have, any evidence of a deity working\nmiracles; but declare that for that we must go out of nature and beyond\nscience, and in effect avow that Gospel miracles are always _objects,_\nnot _evidences_, of faith; who deny the necessity of faith in Jesus as\nsavior to peoples who could never have such faith; and who reject the\nnotion that all mankind are individually involved in the curse and\nperdition of Adam's sin; or even by the Rev. Charles Voysey, who\ndeclines to preach \"the God of the Bible,\" and who will not teach that\nevery word of the Old and New Testament is the word of God; or by the\nRev, Dunbar Heath, who in defiance of the Bible doctrine, that man has\nonly existed on the earth about 6,000 years, teaches that unnumbered\nchiliads have passed away since the human family can be traced as\nnations on our earth; or by Bishop Colenso, who in his impeachment of\nthe Pentateuch, his denial of the literal truth of the narratives of the\ncreation, fall, and deluge, actually impugns the whole scheme of\nChristianity (if the foundation be false, the superstructure cannot be\ntrue); or by the Rev. Baden Powell, who declared \"that the whole tenor\nof geology is in entire contradiction to the cosmogony delivered from\nMount Sinai,\" and who denied a \"local heaven above and a local hell\nbeneath the earth;\" or by the Rev. Dr. Giles, who, not content with\npreceding Dr. Colenso in his assaults on the text of the Pentateuch,\nalso wrote as vigorously against the text of the New Testament; or by\nthe Rev. Dr. Wall, who, unsatisfied with arguments against the\nadmittedly incorrect authorised translation of the Bible, actually wrote\nto prove that a new and corrected Hebrew text was necessary, the Hebrew\nitself being corrupt; or by the Rev. Dr. Irons, who teaches that not\nonly are the Gospel writers unknown, but that the very language in which\nJesus taught is yet to be discovered, who declares that prior to the\nEzraic period the literal history of the Old Testament is lost, who does\nnot find the Trinity taught in Scripture, and who declares that the\nGospel does not teach the doctrine of the Atonement; or by the late\nArchbishop Whately, to whom is attributed a Latin pamphlet raising\nstrong objections against the truth of the alleged confusion of tongues\nat Babel.\n\nWe may fairly allege, that amongst thinking clergymen of the Church of\nEngland, heresy is the rule and not the exception. So soon as a minister\nbegins to preach sermons which he does not buy ready\nlithographed-sermons which are the work of his brain--so soon heresy\nmore or less buds out, now in the rejection of some church doctrine or\narticle of minor importance, now in some bold declaration at variance\nwith major and more essential tenets. Even Bishop Watson, so famous for\nhis Bible Apology, declared that the church articles and creeds were not\nbinding on any man. \"They may be true, they may be false,\" he wrote.\nTo-day scores of Church of England clergymen openly protest against, or\ngroan in silence under the enforced subscription of Thirty-nine\nunbelievable Articles. Sir William Hamilton declares that the heads of\nColleges at Oxford well knew that the man preparing for the Church \"will\nsubscribe Thirty-nine Articles which he cannot believe, and swears to do\nand to have done a hundred articles which he cannot or does not\nperform.\"\n\nIn scientific circles the heresy of the most efficient members is\nstartlingly apparent. Against the late Anthropological Society charges\nof Atheism were freely levelled; and although such a charge does not\nseem to be justified by any reports of their meetings, or by their\nprinted publications, it is clear that not only out of doors, but even\namongst their own circle, it was felt that their researches conflicted\nseriously with the Hebrew writ. The Society was preached against and\nprayed against until it collapsed; and yet it was simply a society for\ndiscovering everything possible about man, prehistoric as well as\nmodern. It had, however, an unpardonable vice in the eyes of the\northodox--it encouraged the utterance of facts without regard to their\neffect on faiths.\n\nThe Ethnological Society is kindred to the last-named in many of its\nobjects, and hence some of its most active members have been direct\nassailants of the Hebrew Chronology, which limits man's existence to the\nshort space of 6,000 years; they have been deniers of the origin of the\nhuman race from one pair, of the confusion of tongues at Babel, and of\nthe reduction of the human race to one family by the Noachian deluge.\n\nGeological science has a crowd of heretics amongst its professors, men\nwho deny the sudden origin of fauna and flora; who trace the gradual\ndevelopment of the vegetable and animal kingdoms through vast periods of\ntime; and who find no resting place in a beginning of existence, but are\nobliged to halt in face of a measureless past, inconceivable in its\ngrandeur. Geology, to quote the words of Dr. Kalisch, declares \"the\nutter impossibility of a creation of even the earth alone in six days.\"\nMr. Goodwin says in the \"Essays and Reviews:\" \"The school-books of the\npresent day, while they teach the child that the earth moves, yet assure\nhim that it is a little less than six thousand years old, and that it\nwas made in six days. On the other hand, geologists of all religious\ncreeds are agreed that the earth has existed for an immense series of\nyears--to be counted by millions rather than by thousands; and that\nindubitably more than six days elapsed from its first creation to the\nappearance of man upon its surface.\"\n\nMr. Richard Proctor says: \"It has been shown that had past geological\nchanges in the earth taken place at the same rate as those which are now\nin progress, one hundred millions of years at the very least would have\nbeen required to produce those effects which have actually been\nproduced, we find, since the earth's surface was fit to be the abode of\nlife. But recently it has been pointed out, correctly in all\nprobability, that under the greater tide-raising power of the moon in\npast ages, these changes would have taken place more rapidly. As,\nhowever, certainly ten millions of years, and probably a much longer\ntime, must have elapsed since the moon was at that favorable distance\nfor raising tides, we are by no means enabled, as some well-meaning but\nmistaken persons have imagined, to reduce the life-bearing stage of the\nearth from a duration of a hundred millions of years to a minute\nfraction of such a period. The short life, but exceedingly lively one,\nwhich they desire to see established by geological or astronomical\nreasoning, never can be demonstrated. At the very least we must assign\nten millions of years to the life-bearing stage of the earth's\nexistence.\"\n\nAstronomy has in the ranks of its professors many of its most able minds\nwho do not believe in the sun and moon as two great lights, who cannot\naccept the myriad stars as fixed in the firmament solely to give light\nupon the earth, who refuse to believe in the heaven as a fixed firmament\nto divide the waters above from the waters beneath, who cannot by their\ntelescopes discover the local heaven above or the local hell beneath,\nalthough their science marks each faint nebulosity crossing, or crossed,\nby the range of the watcher's vision. To quote again from Mr.\nGoodwin:--\"On the revival of science in the sixteenth century, some of\nthe earliest conclusions at which philosophers arrived, were found to be\nat variance with popular and long established belief. The Ptolemaic\nsystem of astronomy, which had then full possession of the minds of men,\ncontemplated the whole visible universe from the earth as the immovable\ncentre of things. Copernicus changed the point of view, and placing the\nbeholder in the sun, at once reduced the earth to an inconspicuous\nglobule, a merely subordinate member of a family of planets, which the\nterrestrials had, until then, fondly imagined to be but pendants and\nornaments of their own habitation. The Church, naturally, took a lively\ninterest in the disputes which arose between the philosophers of the new\nschool, and those who adhered to the old doctrines, inasmuch as the\nHebrew records, the basis of religious faith, manifestly countenanced\nthe opinion of the earth's immobility, and certain other views of the\nuniverse, very incompatible with those propounded by Copernicus. Hence\narose the official proceedings against Galileo, in consequence of which\nhe submitted to sign his celebrated recantation, acknowledging that 'the\nproposition that the sun is the centre of the world and immovable from\nits place, is absurd, philosophically false, and formally heretical,\nbecause it is expressly contrary to the Scripture;' and that 'the\nproposition that the earth is not the centre of the world, nor\nimmovable, but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is absurd,\nphilosophically false, and at least erroneous in faith.'\"\n\nWhy is it that society is so severe on heresy? Three hundred years ago\nit burned heretics, till thirty years ago it sent them to jail; even in\nEngland and America to-day it is content to harass, annoy, and slander\nthem. In the United States a candidate for the Governorship of a State,\nalthough otherwise admittedly eligible, was assailed bitterly for his\nsuspected Socinianism. Sir Sidney Waterlow, standing for a Scotch seat,\nwas sharply catechised as to when he had last been inside a Unitarian\nChapel, and only saved his seat by not too boldly avowing his opinions.\nLord Amberley, who was \"unwise\" enough to be honest in some of his\nanswers, did not obtain his seat for South Devon in consequence of the\nsuspicion of heresy excited against him. It was chiefly to the _odium\ntheologicum_ that John Stuart Mill attributed his rejection at\nWestminster.\n\nDuring the past few years we have had an attempt to revive the old\npersecuting spirit. Atheism has been held sufficient ground for\ndepriving Mrs. Besant of the custody of her infant daughter. Heretical\nviews were enough to cancel the appointment made by Lord Amberley for\nthe guardianship of his children. The Blasphemy Laws have been once more\nput in force in different parts of England, and the Conservative party\nboast that they have been united in their effort to prevent an Atheist\nfrom exercising his political rights.\n\nSir William Drummond says: \"Early associations are generally the\nstrongest in the human mind, and what we have been taught to credit as\nchildren we are seldom disposed to question as men. Called away from\nspeculative inquiries by the common business of life, men in general\npossess neither the inclination, nor the leisure to examine _what_ they\nbelieve or _why_ they believe. A powerful prejudice remains in the mind;\ninsures conviction without the trouble of thinking; and repels doubt\nwithout the aid or authority of reason. The multitude then is not very\nlikely to applaud an author, who calls upon it to consider what it had\nhitherto neglected, and to stop where it had been accustomed to pass on.\nIt may also happen that there is a learned and formidable body, which,\nhaving given its general sanction to the literal interpretation of the\nHoly Scriptures, may be offended at the presumption of an unhallowed\nlayman, who ventures to hold that the language of those Scriptures is\noften symbolical and allegorical, even in passages which both the Church\nand the Synagogue consider as nothing else than a plain statement of\nfact. A writer who had sufficient boldness to encounter such obstacles,\nand to make an appeal to the public, would only expose himself to the\ninvectives of offended bigotry, and to the misrepresentations of\ninterested malice. The press would be made to ring with declamations\nagainst him, and neither learning, nor argument, nor reason, nor\nmoderation on his side, would protect him from the literary\nassassination which awaited him. In vain would he put on the\nheaven-tempered panoply of truth. The weapons which could neither pierce\nhis buckler nor break his casque, might be made to pass with envenomed\npoints through the joints of his armor. Every trivial error which he\nmight commit would be magnified into a flagrant fault; and every\ninsignificant mistake into which he might fall would be represented by\nthe bigoted, or by the hireling critics of the day as an ignorant, or as\na perverse deviation from the truth.\"\n\nBoth by the Statute Law and Common Law, heresy is punishable, and many\nare punished for it even in the second half of the nineteenth century.\nBesides open persecution, there is the constant, unceasing, paltry,\npetty persecuting spirit which refuses to trade with the heretic; which\ndeclines to eat with him; which will not employ him; which feels\njustified in slandering him; which seeks to set his wife's mind against\nhim, and to take away the affection of his children from him.\n\n\n\n\nChapter II. The Sixteenth Century\n\n\nIT requires a more practised pen than mine to even faintly sketch the\nprogress of heresy during the past three centuries, but I trust to give\nthe reader an idea of its rapid growth and wide extension during the\nperiod in which, aided by the printing press, heresy has made the\nmajority of its converts amongst the mass of the people. In earlier\ntimes heretics were not only few, but they talked to the few, and wrote\nto the few, in the language of the few. It is only during the last\nhundred years that the greatest men have sought to make heresy \"vulgar;\"\nthat is, to make it common. One of our leading scientific men, about\nfifteen years ago, admitted that he had been reproved by some of his\nmore orthodox friends, for not confining to the Latin language such of\nhis geological opinions as were supposed to be most dangerous to the\nHebrew records. The starting-point of the real era of popular heresy may\nbe placed at the early part of the sixteenth century, when the memories\nof Huss and Ziska (who had really inoculated the mass with some spirit\nof heretical resistance a century before) aided Luther in resisting\nRome.\n\nMartin Luther, born at Eisleben in Saxony, in 1483, was one of the\nheretics who sought popular endorsement for his heresy, and who\nfollowing the example of the Ulrich [Zwingli], of Zurich, preached to\nthe people in rough plain words. While others were limited to Latin, he\nrang out in plain German his opposition to Tetzel and his protectors.\nMartin Luther is spoken of by orthodox Protestants as if he were a saint\nwithout blemish in his faith. Yet in justification of my ranking him\namongst the heretics of the sixteenth century, it will be sufficient to\nmention that he regarded \"the books of the Kings as more worthy of\ncredit than the books of the Chronicles,\" that he wrote as\nfollows:--\"The book of Esdras I toss into the Elbe.\" \"I am so an enemy\nto the book of Esther I would it did not exist.\" \"Job spake not\ntherefore as it stands written in his book.\" \"It, is a sheer _argumentum\nfabulae_.\" \"The book of the Proverbs of Solomon has been pieced together\nby others.\" Of Ecclesiastes \"there is too much of broken matter in it;\nit has neither boots nor spurs, but rides only in socks.\" \"Isaiah hath\nborrowed his whole art and knowledge from David.\" \"The history of Jonah\nis so monstrous that it is absolutely incredible.\" \"The Epistle to the\nHebrews is not by St. Paul, nor indeed by any Apostle.\" \"The Epistle of\nJames I account the writing of no Apostle,\" and it \"is truly an Epistle\nof straw.\" The Epistle of Jude \"allegeth sayings or stories which have\nno place in Scripture.\" \"Of Revelation I can discover no trace that it\nis established by the Holy Spirit.\" If Martin Luther were alive to-day,\nthe Established Church of England, which pretends to revere him, would\nprosecute him in the English Ecclesiastical Courts if he ventured to\nrepeat the foregoing phrases from her pulpits. What would Christian\nwriters now say of the following passage, which occurs with reference to\nMelancthon, whom Luther boasts that he raised miraculously from the\ndead? \"Melancthon,\" says Sir William Hamilton, to whose essay I am\nindebted for the extracts here given, \"had fallen ill at Weimar from\ncontrition and fear for the part he had been led to take in the\nLandgrave's polygamy: his life was even in danger.\" \"Then and there,\"\nsaid Luther, \"I made our Lord God to smart for it. For I threw down the\nsack before the door, and rubbed his ears with all his promises of\nhearing prayer, which I knew how to recapitulate from Holy Writ, so that\nhe could not but hearken to me, should I ever again place any reliance\non his promises.\" Martin Luther, with his absolute denial of free-will,\nand with his double code of morality for princes and peasants--easy for\none and harsh for the other--may be fairly left now with those who\ndesire to vaunt his orthodoxy; here his name is used to illustrate the\npopular impetus given to nonconformity by his quarrel with the papal\nauthorities. Luther protested against the Romish Church, but established\nby the very fact the right for some more advanced man than Doctor Martin\nLuther to protest in turn against the Lutheran Church. The only\nconsistent church in Christendom is the Romish Church, for it claims the\nright to think for all its followers. The whole of the Protestant\nChurches are inconsistent, for they claim the right to think and judge\nagainst Rome, but deny extremer Nonconformists the right to think and\njudge against themselves. Goethe, says Froude, declares that Luther\nthrew back the intellectual progress of mankind by using the passions of\nthe multitude to decide subjects which should have been left to the\nlearned. But at least some of the multitude once having their ears\nfairly opened, listened to more than the appeal to their passions, and\nexamined for themselves propositions which otherwise they would have\naccepted or rejected from habit and without inquiry. Martin Luther's\npublic discussions with pen and tongue, in Wittemberg, Augsburg, and\nLichtenburg, and the protest he encouraged against Rome, were the\ncommencement of a vigorous controversy, in which the public (who heard\nfor the first time sharp controversial sermons preached publicly in the\nvarious pulpits by Lutheran preachers on free-will and necessity,\nelection and predestination, etc.) began to take real part and interest\nwhich is still going on, and will in fact never end until the unholy\nalliance of Church and State is everywhere annulled, and each religion\nis left to sustain itself by its own truth, or to fall from its own\nweakness, no man being molested under the law on account of his opinions\non religious matters. While Luther undoubtedly gave an impetus to the\ngrowth of Rationalism by his own appeal to reason and his reliance on\nreason for himself, it is not true that he contended for the right of\ngeneral freedom of inquiry, nor would he have left unlimited the\nprivileges of individual judgment for others. He could be furious in his\ndenunciations of reason when a freer thinker than himself dared to use\nit against his superstitions. It is somewhat remarkable that while on\nthe one hand one man, Luther, was detaching from the Church of Rome a\nlarge number of minds, another man, Loyola, was about the same time\nengaged in founding that powerful society (the Society of Jesuits),\nwhich has done so much to check free inquiry and maintain the priestly\ndomination over the human intellect. That which Luther commenced in\nGermany roughly, inefficiently, and perhaps more from personal feeling\nfor the privileges of the special order to which he belonged than from\ndesire for popular progress, was aided in its permanent effect in\nEngland by Bacon, in France by Montaigne and Descartes, and in Italy by\nBruno.\n\nFrancis Bacon, Lord Verulam, was born on the 22nd January, 1561, and\ndied 1626. His mother, Anne, daughter of Sir Anthony Cooke, was a woman\nof high education, and certainly with some inclinations favorable to\nFreethought, for she had herself translated into English some of the\nsermons on fate and free-will of Bernard Ochino, or Bernardin Ochinus,\nan Italian Reforming Heretic, alike repudiated by the powers at Rome,\nGeneva, Wittenberg, and Zurich. Ochino, in his famous disquisition\n\"touching the freedom or bondage of the human will, and the\nforeknowledge, predestination, and liberty of God,\" after discussing,\nwith great acuteness, and from different points of view, these important\ntopics, comes to the conclusion that there is no outlet to the mazes of\nthought in which the honest speculator plunges in the endeavor to solve\nthese problems. Although, like other writers of that and earlier\nperiods, many of Bacon's works were published in Latin, he wrote and\npublished also in English, and if I am right in numbering him as one of\nthe heretics of the sixteenth century, he must be also counted a vulgar\nheretic--i.e., one who wrote in the vulgar tongue, who preached his\nheresy in the language which the mass understood. Lewes says: \"Bacon and\nDescartes are generally recognised as the Fathers of Modern Philosophy,\nalthough they themselves were carried along by the rapidly-swelling\ncurrent of their age, then decisively setting in the direction of\nscience. It is their glory to have seen visions of the coming greatness,\nto have expressed in terms of splendid power the thoughts which were\ndimly stirring the age, and to have sanctioned the new movement by their\nauthoritative genius.\" Bacon was the populariser of that method of\nreasoning known as the inductive, that method which seeks to trace back\nfrom the phenomena of the moment to the eternal noumenon or\nnoumena--from the conditioned to the absolute. Nearly two thousand years\nbefore, the same method had been taught by Aristotle in opposition to\nPlato, and probably long thousands of years before the grand Greek,\npre-historic schoolmen had used the method; it is natural to the human\nmind. The Stagirite was the founder of a school, Bacon the teacher and\npopulariser for a nation. Aristotle's Greek was known to few, Bacon's\neloquent English opened out the subject to the many whom he impregnated\nwith his own confidence in the grand progressiveness of human thought.\nLewes says: \"The spirit of his philosophy was antagonistic to theology,\nfor it was a spirit of doubt and search; and its search was for visible\nand tangible results.\" Bacon himself, in his essay on Superstition,\nsays: \"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety,\nto laws, to reputation, all which may be guides to an outward moral\nvirtue, though religion were not; but superstition dismounts all these,\nand erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men: therefore Atheism\ndid never perturb states; for it makes men wary of themselves, as\nlooking no further; and we see the times inclined to Atheism, as the\ntime of Augustus Caesar, were civil times; but superstition hath been\nthe confusion of many states, and bringeth in a new _primum mobile_ (the\nfirst motive cause), that ravisheth all the spheres of government.\" It\nis true that he also wrote against Atheism, and this in strong language,\nbut his philosophy was not used for the purpose of proving theological\npropositions. He said: \"True philosophy is that which is the faithful\necho of the voice of the world, which is written in some sort under the\ndictation of things, which adds nothing of itself, which is only the\nrebound, the reflexion of reality.\" It has been well said that the words\n\"Utility and Progress\" give the keynotes of Bacon's teachings. With one\nother extract we leave his writings. \"Crafty men,\" he says, \"contemn\nstudies, simple men admire them, and wise men use them; for they teach\nnot their own use; but that is a wisdom without them, and above them,\nwon by observation. Read not to contradict and confute, nor to believe\nand take for granted, nor to find talk and discourse; but to weigh and\nconsider. Some books are to be tasted, others to be swallowed, and some\nfew to be chewed and digested. Reading maketh a full man; conference a\nready man; and writing an exact man; and therefore, if a man write\nlittle, he need have a great memory; if he confer little, he need have a\npresent wit; and if he read little, he had need have much cunning, to\nseem to know that he doth not. Histories make men wise; poets witty; the\nmathematicis subtle; natural philosophy deep; moral, grave; logic and\nrhetoric, able to contend.\" He was the father of experimental\nphilosophy. In one of his suggestions as to the force of attraction of\ngravitation may be found the first aid to Sir Isaac Newton's later\ndemonstrations on this head; another of his suggestions, worked out by\nTorricelli, ended in demonstrating the weight of the atmosphere. But to\nthe method he so popularised may be attributed the grandest discoveries\nof modern times. It is to be deplored that the memory of his moral\nweakness should remain to spoil the praise of his grand intellect.\n\nLord Macaulay, in the _Edinburgh Review_, after contrasting at some\nlength the philosophy of Plato with that of Bacon, said:--\"To sum up the\nwhole: we should say that the aim of the Platonic philosophy was to\nexalt man into a god. The aim of the Baconian philosophy was to provide\nman with what he requires while he continues to be man. The aim of the\nPlatonic philosophy was to raise us far above vulgar wants. The aim of\nthe Baconian philosophy was to supply our vulgar wants. The former aim\nwas noble; but the latter was attainable. Plato drew a good bow; but,\nlike Acestes in Virgil, he aimed at the stars; and therefore, though\nthere was no want of strength or skill, the shot was thrown away.\n\nHis arrow was indeed followed by a track of dazzling radiance, but it\nstruck nothing. Bacon fixed his eye on a mark which was placed on the\nearth and within bowshot, and hit it in the white. The philosophy of\nPlato began in words and ended in words--noble words indeed--words such\nas were to be expected from the finest of human intellects exercising\nboundless dominion over the finest of human languages. The philosophy of\nBacon began in observations and ended in arts.\n\nIn France the political heresy of Jean Bodin--who challenged the divine\nright of rulers; who proclaimed the right of resistance against\noppressive decrees of monarchs; who had words of laudation for\ntyranicide, and yet had no conception that the multitude were entitled\nto use political power, but on the contrary wrote against them--was very\nimperfect, the conception of individual right was confounded in the\nhabit of obedience to monarchical authority. Bodin is classed by Mosheim\namongst the writers who sowed the seeds of scepticism in France; but\nalthough he was far from an orthodox man, it is doubtful if Bodin ever\nintended his views to be shared beyond the class to which he belonged.\nTo the partial glimpse of individual right in the works of Bodin add the\ndoctrine of political fraternity taught by La Boetie, and then this\npolitical heresy becomes dangerous in becoming popular.\n\nThe most decided heretic and doubter of the sixteenth century was one\nSanthez, by birth a Portuguese, and practising as a physician at\nToulouse; but the impetus which ultimately led to the spread and\npopularity of sceptical opinions in relation to politics and theology,\nis chiefly due to the satirical romances of Rabelais and the essays of\nMontaigne. \"What Rabelais was to the supporters of theology,\" says\nBuckle, \"that was Montaigne to the theology itself. The writings of\nRabelais were only directed against the clergy, but the writings of\nMontaigne were directed against the system of which the clergy were the\noffspring.\"\n\nMontaigne was born at Bordeaux 1533, died 1592. Louis Blanc says of his\nwords: \"Et ce ne sont pas simples discours d'un philosophe a des\nphilosophes. Montaigne s'adresse a tous.\" Montaigne's words were not\nthose of a philosopher talking only to his own order, he addressed\nhimself to mankind at large, and he wrote in language the majority could\neasily comprehend. Voltaire points out that Montaigne as a philosopher\nwas the exception in France to his class; he having succeeded in\nescaping that persecution which fell so heavily on others. Montaigne's\nthoughts were like sharp instruments scattered broadcast, and intended\nfor the destruction of many of the old social and conventional bonds; he\nwas the advocate of individualism, and placed each man as above society,\nrather than society as more important than each man. Montaigne mocked\nthe reasoners who contradicted each other, and derided that fallibility\nof mind which regarded the opinion of the moment as infallibly true, and\nwhich was yet always temporarily changed by an attack of fever or a\ndraught of strong drink, and often permanently modified by some new\ndiscovery. Less fortunate than Montaigne, Godfrey a Valle was burned for\nheresy in Paris in 1572, his chief offence having been that of issuing a\nwork entitled \"De Arte Nihil Credenti.\"\n\nHeresy thus championed in France, Germany, and England, had in Italy its\nsixteenth century soldiers in Pomponatius of Mantua, Giordano Bruno, and\nTelesio, both of Naples, and in Campa-nella of Calabria, a gallant band,\nwho were nearly all met with the cry of \"Atheist,\" and were either\nanswered with exile, the prison, or the faggot.\n\nPomponatius, who was born 1486 and died 1525, wrote a treatise on the\nSoul, which was so much deemed an attack on the doctrine of immortality\ndespite a profession of reverence for the dogmas of the Church, that the\nwork was publicly burned at Venice, a special bull of Leo X being\ndirected against the doctrine.\n\nBernard Telesio was born at Naples in 1508, and founded there a school\nin which mathematics and philosophy were given the first place. During\nhis lifetime he had the good fortune to escape persecution, but after\nhis death his works were proscribed by the Church. Telesio was chiefly\nuseful in educating the minds of some of the Neapolitans for more\nadvanced thinking than his own.\n\nThis was well illustrated in the case of Thomas Campanella, born 1568,\nwho, attracted by the teachings of Telesio, wrote vigorously against the\nold schoolmen and in favor of the new philosophy. Despite an affected\nreverence for the Church of Rome, Campanella spent twenty-seven years of\nhis life in prison. Campa-nella has been, as is usually the case with\neminent writers, charged with Atheism, but there seems to be no fair\nfoundation for the charge. He was a true heretic, for he not only\nopposed Aristotle, but even his own teacher Telesio. None of these men,\nhowever, yet strove to reach the people, they wrote to and of one\nanother, not to or of the masses. It is said that Campanella was fifty\ntimes arrested and seven times tortured for his heresy.\n\nOne Andrew de Bena, a profound scholar and eminent preacher of the\nChurch of Rome, carried away by the spirit of the time, came out into\nthe reformed party; but his mind once set free from the old trammels,\nfound no rest in Luther's narrow church, and a poetic Pantheism was the\nresult.\n\nJerome Cardan, a mathematician of considerable ability, born at Pavia\n1501, has been fiercely accused of Atheism. His chief offence seems to\nhave been rather in an opposite direction; astrology was with him a\nfavorite subject. While the strange views put forward in some of his\nworks served good purpose by provoking inquiry, we can hardly class\nCardan otherwise than as a man whose undoubted genius and erudition were\nmore than counterbalanced by his excessively superstitious folly.\n\nGiordano Bruno was born near Naples about 1550. He was burned at Rome\nfor heresy on the 17th February, 1600. Bruno was burned for alleged\nAtheism, but appears rather to have been a Pantheist. His most prominent\navowal of heresy was the disbelief in eternal torment and rejection of\nthe common orthodox ideas of the devil. He wrote chiefly in Italian, his\nvulgar tongue, and thus effectively aided the grand march of heresy by\nfamiliarising the eyes of the people with newer and truer forms of\nthought. Bruno used the tongue as fluently as the pen. He spoke in Italy\nuntil he had roused an opposition rendering flight the only possible\nescape from death. At Geneva he found no resting-place, the fierce\nspirit of [Zwingli] and Calvin was there too mighty; at Paris he might\nhave found favor with the King, and at the Sorbonne, but he refused to\nattend mass, and delivered a series of popular lectures, which won many\nadmirers; from Paris he went to England, where we find him publicly\ndebating at Oxford and lecturing on theology, until he excited an\nantagonism which induced his return to Paris, where he actually publicly\ndiscussed for three days some of the grand problems of existence. Paris\northodoxy could not permit his onslaughts on established opinions, and\nthis time it was to Germany Bruno turned for hospitality; where, after\nvisiting many of the different states, lecturing freely and with general\nsuccess, he drew upon himself a sentence of excommunication at\nHelmstadt. At last he returned to Italy and spoke at Padua, but had at\nonce to fly thence from the Inquisition; at Venice he found a\nresting-place in prison, whence after six years of dungeon, and after\nthe tender mercy of the rack, he was led out to receive the final\nrefutation of the faggot. There is a grand heroism in the manner in\nwhich he received his sentence and bore his fiery punishment. No cry of\ndespair, no prayer for escape, no flinching at the moment of death.\nBruno's martyrdom may favorably contrast with the highest example\nChristianity gives us.\n\nIt was in the latter half of the sixteenth century, that Unitarianism or\nSocinianism assumed a front rank position in Europe, having its chief\nstrength in Poland, with considerable force in Holland and England. In\n1524, one Lewis Hetzer had been publicly burned at Constance, for\ndenying the divinity of Jesus; but Hetzer was more connected with the\nAnabaptists than with the Unitarians. About the same time a man named\nClaudius openly argued amongst the Swiss people, against the doctrine of\nthe Trinity, and one John Campanus contended at Wittenberg, and other\nplaces, against the usually inculcated doctrines of the Church, as to\nthe Father, Son, and Holy Ghost.\n\nIn 1566, Valentine Gentilis, a Neapolitan, was put to death at Berne,\nfor teaching the superiority of God the Father, over the Son and the\nHoly Ghost. Modern Unitarianism appears to have had as its founders or\nchief promoters, Laelius Socinus, and his nephew Faustus Socinus; the\nfirst having the better brain and higher genius, but marred by a timid\nand irresolute character; the second having a more active nature and\nbolder temperament. From Cracow and Racow, during the latter half of\nthis century, the Unitarians (who drew into their ranks many men of\nadvanced minds) issued a large number of books and pamphlets, which were\ncirculated amongst the people with considerable zeal and industry.\nUnitarianism was carried from Poland into Transylvania by a physician,\nGeorge Blandrata, and a preacher Francis David or Davides, who obtained\nthe support and countenance of the then ruler of the country. Davides\nunfortunately for himself, became too unitarian for the Unitarians; he\nadopted the extreme views of one Simon Budnaeus, who, in Lithuania,\nentirely repudiated any sort of religious worship in reference to Jesus.\nBudnaeus was excommunicated by the Unitarians themselves, and Davides\nwas imprisoned for the rest of his life. As the Unitarians were\npersecuted by the old Romish and New Lutheran Churches, so they in turn\npersecuted seceders from and opposers of their own movement. Each man's\nhistory involved the widening out of public thought; each act of\npersecution illustrated a vain endeavor to check the progress of heresy;\neach new sect marked a step towards the destruction of the old\nobstructive faiths.\n\nAbout the close of the sixteenth century, Ernestius Sonerus, of\nNuremberg, wrote against the doctrine of eternal torment, and also\nagainst the divinity of Jesus, but his works were never very widely\ncirculated. Amongst the distinguished Europeans of the sixteenth century\nwhom Dr. J.P. Smith mentions as either Atheists or favoring Atheism,\nwere Paul Jovius, Peter Aretin, and Muretus. Rumor has even enrolled\nLouis X himself in the Atheistical ranks. How far some of these men had\nwarranted the charge other than by being promoters of literature and\nlovers of philosophy, it is now difficult to say. A determined\nresistance was offered to the spread of heretical opinions in the South\nof Europe by the Roman Church, and it is alleged that some thousands of\npersons were burned or otherwise punished in Spain, Portugal, and Naples\nduring the sixteenth century. The Inquisition or Holy Office was in\nSpain and Portugal the most prominent and active persecutor, but\npersecution was carried on vigorously in other parts of Europe by the\nseceders from Rome. [Zwingli], Luther, and Calvin, were as harsh as the\nPope towards those with whom they differed.\n\nMichael Servetus, or Servede, was a native of Arragon, by profession a\nphysician; he wrote against the orthodox doctrines of the Trinity, but\nwas far from ordinary Unitarianism. He was burned at Geneva, at the\ninstance of Calvin. Calvin was rather fond of burning heretical\nopponents; to the name of Servetus might be added that of Gruet, who\nalso was burned at the instance of Calvin, for denying the divinity of\nthe Christian religion, and for arguing against the immortality of the\nsoul.\n\nIt is worth notice that while heresy in this sixteenth century began to\nbranch out openly, and to strike its roots down firmly amongst the\npeople, ecclesiastical historians are compelled to record improvement in\nthe condition of society. Mosheim says: \"In this century the arts and\nsciences were carried to a pitch unknown to preceding ages, and from\nthis happy renovation of learning, the European churches derived the\nmost signal and inestimable advantages.\" \"The benign influence of true\nscience, and its tendency to improve both the form of religion and the\ninstitutions of civil policy, were perceived by many of the states.\" The\nlove of literature is the most remarkable and characteristic form of\nadvancing civilisation. Instead of being the absorbing passion of the\nlearned few, it becomes gradually the delight and occupation of\nincreasing numbers. This cultivation of literary pursuits by the masses\nis only possible when enough of heresy has been obtained to render their\nscope of study wide enough to be useful. Rotterdam gave life to the\npolished Erasmus, Valentia to Ludovico Vivez, Picardy to Le Fevre, and\nFrance to Rabelais.\n\nIn the latter half of this century, giants in literature grew out,\ngiants who wrote for the people. William Shakspere wrote even for those\nwho could not read, but who might learn while looking and listening. His\ncomedies and tragedies are at the same time pictures for the people of\ndiverse phases of English life and character, with a thereunto added\nuniversality of portrayal and breadth in philosophy, which it is hardly\ntoo much to say, that no other dramatist has ever equaled. Italy boasts\nits 'Torquato Tasso, whose \"Jerusalem Delivered,\" the grand work of a\ngreat poet, marks, like a mighty monument, the age capable of finding\neven in a priest-ridden country, an audience amongst the lowest as well\nas the highest, ready to read and sing, and finally permeated with the\npoet's outpourings. In astronomy, the name of Tycho Brahe stands out in\nthe sixteenth century like one of the first magnitude stars whose\nexistence he catalogued.\n\n\n\n\nChapter III. The Seventeenth Century\n\n\nTHE seeds of inquiry sown in the sixteenth century resulted in a\nfruitful display of advanced opinions during the next age. In the page\nof seventeenth-century history, more names of men, either avowedly\nheretics, or charged by the orthodox with heresy, or whose labors can be\nshown to have tended to the growth of heresy, may probably be recorded\nthan can be found during the whole of the previously long period during\nwhich the Christian Church assumed to dominate and control European\nthought. The seventeenth-century muster-roll of heresy is indeed a grand\none, and gloriously filled. One of its early martyrs was Julius Caesar\nVanini, who was burned at Toulouse, in the year 1619, aged 34, as \"an\nimpious and obstinate Atheist.\" Was he Atheist, or was he not? This is a\nquestion, in answering which the few remains of his works give little\nground for sharing the opinion of his persecutors. Yet many writers\nagree in writing as if his Atheism were of indisputable notoriety. He\nwas a poor Neapolitan priest, he preached a sort of Pantheism;\nunfortunately for himself, he believed in the utility of public\ndiscussion on theological questions, and thus brought upon his head the\ncharge of seeking to convert the world to Atheism.\n\nIn 1611, two men, named Legat and Whitman, were burned in England for\nheresy. \"But,\" says Buckle, \"this was the last gasp of expiring bigotry;\nand since that memorable day the soil of England has never been stained\nby the blood of a man who has suffered for his religious creed.\"\n\nPeter Charron, of Paris, ought perhaps to have been included in the\nsixteenth-century list, for he died in 1603, but his only known work,\n\"La Sagesse,\" belongs to the seventeenth century, in which it circulated\nand obtained reputation. He urged that religion is the accidental result\nof birth and education, and that therefore variety of creed should not\nbe cause of quarrel between men, as such variety is the result of\ncircumstances over which the men themselves have had no control; and he\nurges that as each sect claims to be the only true one, we ought to rise\nsuperior to all sects, and without being terrified by the fear of future\npunishment, or allured by the hope of future happiness, \"be content with\nsuch practical religion as consists in performing the duties of life.\"\nBuckle, who speaks in high terms of Charron, says: \"The Sorbonne went so\nfar as to condemn Charron's great work, but could not succeed in having\nit prohibited.\"\n\nRene Descartes Duperron, a few years later than Bacon (he was born in\n1596, at La Haye, in Touraine, died 1650, at Stockholm) established the\nfoundations of the deductive method of reasoning, and applied it in a\nmanner which Bacon had apparently carefully avoided. Both Descartes and\nBacon addressed themselves to the task of substituting for the old\nsystems, a more comprehensive and useful spirit of philosophy; but while\nBacon sought to accomplish this by persuading men to experiment and\nobservation, Descartes commenced with the search for a first and\nself-evident ground of all knowledge. This, to him, is found in\nconsciousness. The existence of Deity was a point which Bacon left\nuntouched by reason, yet with Descartes it was the first proposition he\nsought to prove. He says: \"I have always thought that the two questions\nof the existence of God and the nature of the soul, were the chief of\nthose which ought to be demonstrated rather by philosophy than by\ntheology, for although it is sufficient for us, the faithful, to believe\nin God, and that the soul does not perish with the body, it does not\nseem possible ever to persuade the infidels to any religion unless we\nfirst prove to them those two things by natural reason.\" To prove this\nexistence of God and the immortality of the soul, Descartes needed a\nfirm starting point, one which no doubt could touch, one which no\nargument could shake. He found this point in the fact of his own\nexistence. He could doubt everything else, but he could not doubt that\nhe, the thinking doubter, existed. His own existence was the primal\nfact, the indubitable certainty, which served as the base for all other\nreasonings, hence his famous \"Cogito ergo sum:\"--I think, therefore I\nam. And although it has been fairly objected that Descartes did not\nexist because he thought, but existed and thought; it is nevertheless\nclear that it is only in the thinking that Descartes had the\nconsciousness of his existence. The fact of Descartes' existence was, to\nhim, one above and beyond all logic. Evidence could not add to the\ncertitude, no scepticism could impeach it. Whether or not we agree with\nthe Cartesian philosophy, or the reasonings used to sustain it, we must\nadmire the following four rules which he has given us, and which, with\nthe view of consciousness in which we do not entirely concur, are the\nessential features of the basis of a considerable portion of Descartes'\nsystem:--\n\n\"1. Never to accept anything as true but what is evidently so; to admit\nnothing but what so clearly and distinctly presents itself as true, that\nthere can be no reason to doubt it.\n\n\"2. To divide every question into as many separate parts as possible,\nthat each part being more easily conceived, the whole may be more\nintelligible.\n\n\"3. To conduct the examination with order, beginning by that of objects\nthe most simple, and therefore the easiest to be known, and ascending\nlittle by little up to knowledge of the most complex.\n\n\"4. To make such exact calculations, and such circumspections as to be\nconfident that nothing essential has been omitted.\"\n\n\"Consciousness being the basis of all certitude, everything, of which\nyou are clearly and distinctly conscious must be true; everything which\nyou clearly and distinctly conceive, exists, if the idea involve\nexistence.\"\n\nIt should be remarked that consciousness being a state or condition of\nthe mind, is by no means an infallible guide. Men may fancy they have\nclear ideas, when their consciousness, if carefully examined, would\nprove to have been treacherous. Descartes argued for three classes of\nideas--acquired, compounded, and innate. It is in his assumption of\ninnate ideas that you have one of the radical weaknesses of his system.\nSir William Hamilton points out that the use of the word idea by\nDescartes, to express the object of memory, imagination, and sense, was\nquite a new usage, only one other writer, David Buchanan, having\npreviously used the word idea with this signification.\n\nDescartes did not write for the mass, and his philosophy would have been\nlimited to a much narrower circle had its spread rested on his own\nefforts. But the age was one for new thought, and the contemporaries and\nsuccessors of Descartes carried the Cartesian logic to extremes he had\nperhaps avoided, and they taught the new philosophy to the world in a\nfearless spirit, with a boldness for which Descartes could have given\nthem no example. Descartes, who in early life had travelled much more\nthan was then the custom, had probably made the personal acquaintance of\nmost of the leading thinkers of Europe then living; it would be\notherwise difficult to account for the very ready reception given by\nthem to his first work. Fortunately for Descartes, he was born with a\nfair fortune, and escaped such difficulties as poorer philosophers must\nneeds submit to. There is perhaps a per contra side. It is more than\npossible that if the needs of life had compelled him, Descartes'\nscientific predilections might have resulted in more immediate advantage\nto society. His philosophy is often pedantic to weariness, and his\nscientific theories are often sterile. The fear of poverty might have\nquickened some of his speculations [into] a more practical utterance.\nBuckle reminds us that Descartes \"was the first who successfully applied\nalgebra to geometry; that he pointed out the important law of the sines;\nthat in an age in which optical instruments were extremely imperfect, he\ndiscovered the changes to which light is subjected in the eye by the\ncrystalline lens; that he directed attention to the consequences\nresulting from the weight of the atmosphere, and that he detected the\ncauses of the rainbow.\" \"Descartes,\" says Saintes, \"throwing off the\nswaddling clothes of scholasticism, resolved to owe to himself alone the\nacquisition of the truth which he so earnestly desired to possess. For\nwhat else is the methodical doubt which he established as the starting\npoint in his philosophy, than an energetic protest of the human mind\nagainst all external authority? Having thus placed all science on a\nphilosophical basis, no matter what, he freed philosophy herself from\nher long servitude, and proclaimed her queen of the intellect. Hence\neveryone who has wished to account to himself for his existence,\neveryone who has desired to know himself, to know nature, and to rise to\nits author; in a word, all who have wished to make a wise use of their\nintellectual faculties, to apply them, not to hollow speculations which\nborder on nonentity, but to sensible and practical inquiries, have taken\nand followed some direction from Descartes.\" It is almost amusing when\nphilosophers criticise their predecessors. Mons. Henri Ritter denies to\nDescartes any originality of method or even of illustration, while Hegel\ndescribes him as the founder of modern philosophy, whose influence upon\nhis own age and on modern times it is impossible to exaggerate. To\nattempt to deal fully and truly with Descartes in the few lines which\ncan be spared here, is impossible; all that is sought is to as it were\ncatalogue his name in the seventeenth-century list. Whether originator\nor imitator, whether founder or disciple, it is certain that Descartes\ngave a sharp spur to European thought, and mightily hastened the\nprogress of heresy. It is not the object or duty of the present writer\nto examine or refute any of the extraordinary views entertained by\nDescartes as to vortices. Descartes himself is reported to have said,\n\"my theory of vortices is a philosophical romance.\" Science in the last\nthree centuries has travelled even more rapidly than philosophy; and\nmost of the physical speculations of Descartes are relegated to the\nregion of grandly curious blunderings. There is one point of error held\nby Descartes sufficiently entertained even to-day--although most often\nwithout a distinct appreciation of the position--to justify a few words\nupon it. Descartes denied mental faculties to all the animal kingdom\nexcept mankind. All the brute kingdom he re-garded as machines without\nintelligence. In this he was logical, even in error, for he accorded a\nsoul to man which he denied to the brute. Soul and mind with him are\nidentified, and thought is the fundamental attribute of mind. To admit\nthat a dog, horse, or elephant can think, that it can remember what\nhappened yesterday, that it can reason ever so incompletely, would be to\nadmit that that dog, horse, or elephant, has some kind of soul; to avoid\nthis he reduces all animals outside the human family to the position of\nmachines. To-day science admits in animals, more or less according to\ntheir organisation, perception, memory, judgment, and even some sort of\nreason. Yet orthodoxy still claims a soul for man even if he be a madman\nfrom his birth, and denies it to the sagacious elephant, the intelligent\nhorse, the faithful dog, and the cunning monkey. His proof of the\nexistence of Deity is thus stated by Lewes:--\"Interrogating his\nconsciousness, he found that he had the idea of God, understanding by\nGod, a substance infinite, eternal, immutable, independent, omniscient,\nomnipotent. This, to him, was as certain a truth as the truth of his own\nexistence. I exist: not only do I exist, but exist as a miserably\nimperfect finite being, subject to change, greatly ignorant and\nincapable of creating anything. In this, my consciousness, I find by my\nfinitude that I am not the All; by my imperfection, that I am not\nperfect. Yet an infinite and perfect being must exist, because infinity\nand perfection are implied as correlatives in my ideas of imperfection\nand finitude. God therefore exists: his existence is clearly proclaimed\nin my consciousness, and can no more be a matter of doubt, when fairly\nconsidered, than my own existence. The conception of an infinite being\nproves his real existence; for if there is not really such a being, I\nmust have made the conception; but if I could make it, I can also unmake\nit, which evidently is not true; therefore there must be, externally to\nmyself, an archetype from which the conception was derived. All that we\nclearly and distinctly conceive as contained in anything, is true of\nthat thing. Now we conceive, clearly and distinctly, that the existence\nof God is contained in the idea we have of him--Ergo, God exists.\"\n\nIt may not be out of place to note at this point, that the Jesuit\nwriter, Father Hardouin, in his \"Atheists Unmasked,\" as a recompense for\nthis demonstration of the existence of Deity, places Descartes and his\ndisciples, le Grand and Regis, in the first rank of atheistical\nteachers. Voltaire, commenting on this, remarks: \"The man who had\ndevoted all the acuteness of his extraordinary intellect to the\ndiscovery of new proofs of the existence of a God, was most absurdly\ncharged with denying him altogether.\" Speaking of the proof of the\nexistence of Deity: \"Demonstrations of this kind,\" says Froude, \"were\nthe characteristics of the period.\" Descartes had set the example of\nconstructing them, and was followed by Cud-worth, Clarke, Berkeley, and\nmany others besides Spinoza. The inconclusiveness of the method may\nperhaps be observed most readily in the strangely opposite conceptions\nformed by all these writers of the nature of that Being whose existence\nthey nevertheless agreed, by the same process, to gather each out of\ntheir ideas. It is important, however, to examine it carefully, for it\nis the very keystone of the Pantheistic system. As stated by Descartes,\nthe argument stands something as follows:--God is an allperfect Being,\nperfection is the idea which we form of Him, existence is a mode of\nperfection, and therefore God exists. The sophism, we are told, is only\napparent, existence is part of the idea--as much involved in it as the\nequality of all lines drawn from the centre to the circumference of a\ncircle is involved in the idea of a circle. A non-existent all-perfect\nBeing is as inconceivable as a quadrilateral triangle. It is sometimes\nanswered that in this way we may prove the existence of anything,\nTitans, Chimeras, or the Olympian gods; we have but to define them as\nexisting, and the proof is complete. But this objection is summarily set\naside; none of these beings are by hypothesis absolutely perfect, and,\ntherefore, of their existence we can conclude nothing. With greater\njustice, however, we may say, that of such terms as perfection and\nexistence we know too little to speculate. Existence may be an\nimperfection for all we can tell, we know nothing about the matter.\n\nSuch arguments are but endless _petitiones principii_--like the\nself-devouring serpent, resolving themselves into nothing. We wander\nround and round them in the hope of finding some tangible point at which\nwe can seize their meaning; but we are presented everywhere with the\nsame impracticable surface, from which our grasp glides off ineffectual.\n\nThomas Hobbes, of Malmesbury, is one of those men more often freely\nabused than carefully read; he was born April 5th, 1588, died 1679. He\nwas \"the subtlest dialectician of his time,\" and one of the earliest\nEnglish advocates of the materialistic limitation of mind; he denies the\npossibility of any knowledge other than as resulting from sensation; his\ndoctrine is in direct negation of Descartes' theory of innate ideas, and\nwould be fatal to the orthodox dogma of mind as spiritual. \"Whatever we\nimagine,\" he says \"is finite. Therefore there is no idea, no conception\nof anything we call infinite.\" In a brief pamphlet on his own views,\npublished in 1680, in reply to attacks upon him, he writes: \"Besides the\ncreation of the world there is no argument to prove a Deity,\" \"and that\nit cannot be decided by any argument that the world had a beginning; but\nhe professes to admit the authority of the Magistrate and the Scriptures\nto override argument. He says that he does not believe that the safety\nof the state depends upon the safety of the church.\" Some of Hobbes'\npieces were only in Latin, others were issued in English. In one of\nthose on Heresy, he mentions that by the statute of Edward VI, cap. 12,\nthere is no provision for the repeal of all former acts of parliament\n\"made to punish any matter of doctrine concerning religion.\"\n\nIn the following extracts the reader will find the prominent features of\nthat sensationalism which to-day has so many adherents:--\"Concerning the\nthoughts of man, I will consider them first singly, and afterwards in a\ntrain or dependence upon one another. Singly they are every one a\nrepresentation or appearance of some quality or other accident of a body\nwithout us, which is commonly called an object. Which object worketh on\nthe eyes, ears, and other parts of a man's body, and by diversity of\nworking produceth diversity of appearances. The original of them all is\nthat which we call sense, for there is no conception in a man's mind\nwhich hath not at first totally or by parts been begotten upon the\norgans of sense. The rest are derived from that original.\" The effect of\nthis is to deny any possible knowledge other than as results from the\nactivity of the sensitive faculties, and is also fatal to the doctrine\nof a soul. \"According,\" says Hobbes, \"to the two principal parts of man,\nI divide his faculties into two sorts--faculties of the body, and\nfaculties of the mind. Since the minute and distinct anatomy of the\npowers of the body is nothing necessary to the present purpose, I will\nonly sum them up in these three heads--power nutritive, power\ngenerative, and power motive. Of the powers of the mind there be two\nsorts--cognitive, imaginative, or conceptive, and motive. For the\nunderstanding of what I mean by the power cognitive, we must remember\nand acknowledge that there be in our minds continually certain images or\nconceptions of the things without us. This imagery and representation of\nthe qualities of the things without, is that which we call our\nconception, imagination, ideas, notice, or knowledge of them; and the\nfaculty, or power by which we are capable of such knowledge, is that I\nhere call cognitive power, or conceptive, the power of knowing or\nconceiving.\" \"All the qualities called sensible are, in the object that\ncauseth them, but so many several motions of the matter by which it\npresseth on our organs diversely. Neither in us that are pressed are\nthey anything else but divers motions; for motion produceth nothing but\nmotion. Because the image in vision, consisting of color and shape, is\nthe knowledge we have of the qualities of the objects of that sense; it\nis no hard matter for a man to fall into this opinion that the same\ncolor and shape are the very qualities themselves, and for the same\ncause that sound and noise are the qualities of the bell or of the air.\nAnd this opinion hath been so long received that the contrary must needs\nappear a great paradox, and yet the introduction of species visible and\nintelligible (which is necessary for the maintenance of that opinion)\npassing to and fro from the object is worse than any paradox, as being a\nplain impossibility. I shall therefore endeavor to make plain these\npoints. That the subject wherein color and image are inherent, is not\nthe object or thing seen. That there is nothing without us (really)\nwhich we call an image or color. That the said image or color is but an\napparition unto us of the motion, agitation, or alteration which the\nobject worketh in the brain, or spirits, or some internal substance of\nthe head. That as in visions, so also in conceptions that arise from the\nother senses, the subject of their inference is not the object but the\nsentient.\" Strange to say, Hobbes was protected from his clerical\nantagonists by the favor of Charles II, who had the portrait of the\nphilosopher of Malmesbury hung on the walls of his private room at\nWhitehall.\n\nLord Herbert, of Cherbury (one of the friends of Hobbes) born 1581, died\n1648, is remarkable for having written a book \"De Veritate,\" in favor of\nnatural--and against any necessity for revealed--religion; and yet at\nthe same time pleading a sort of special sign or revelation to himself\nin favor of its publication.\n\nPeter Gassendi, a native of Provence, born 1592, died 1655, was one of\nthe opponents of Descartes and of Lord Herbert, and was an admirer of\nHobbes; he advocated the old philosophy of Epicurus, professing to\nreject \"from it everything contrary to Christianity.\" \"But,\" asks\nCousin, \"how could he succeed in this? Principles, processes, results,\neverything in Epicurus is sensualism, materialism, Atheism.\" Gassendi's\nworks were characterised by great learning and ability, but being\nconfined to the Latin tongue, and written avowedly with the intent of\navoiding any conflict with the church, they gave but little immediate\nimpetus to the great heretical movement. Arnauld charges Gassendi with\noverturning the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, in his\ndiscussion with Descartes, and Leibnitz charges Gassendi with corrupting\nand injuring the whole system of natural religion by the wavering nature\nof his opinions. Buckle says: \"The rapid increase of heresy in the\nmiddle of the seventeenth century is very remarkable, and it greatly\naided civilisation in England by encouraging habits of independent\nthought.\" In February 1646, Boyle writes from London: \"There are few\ndays pass here, that may not justly be accused of the brewing or\nbroaching of some new opinion. If any man have lost his religion, let\nhim repair to London, and I'll warrant him he shall find it: I had\nalmost said too, and if any man has a religion, let him but come hither\nnow and he shall go near to lose it.\"\n\nAbout 1655, one Isaac La Peyrere wrote two small treatises to prove that\nthe world was peopled before Adam, but being arrested at Brussels, and\nthreatened with the stake, he, to escape the fiery refutation, made a\nfull recantation of his views, and restored to the world its\ndearly-prized stain of natural depravity, and to Adam his position as\nthe first man. La Peyrere's forced recantation is almost forgotten, the\nopinions he recanted are now amongst common truths.\n\nBaruch D'Espinoza or Benedict Spinoza, was born Nov. 24, 1632, in\nAmsterdam; an apt scholar, he, at the early age of fourteen, had\nmastered the ordinary tasks set him by his teacher, the Rabbi Moteira,\nand at fifteen puzzled and affrighted the grave heads of the synagogue,\nby attempting the solution of problems which they themselves were well\ncontent to pass by. As he grew older his reason took more daring\nflights, and after attempts had been made to bribe him into submissive\nsilence, when threats had failed to check or modify him, and when even\nthe knife had no effect, then the fury of disappointed fanaticism found\nvent in the bitter curse of excommunication, and when about twenty-four\nyears of age, Spinoza found himself outcast and anathematised. Having no\nprivate means or rich patrons, and differing in this from nearly\neveryone whose name we have yet given, our hero subsisted as a polisher\nof glasses, microscopes, etc., devoting his leisure to the study of\nlanguages and philosophy. There are few men as to whom modern writers\nhave so widely differed in the description of their views, few who have\nbeen so thoroughly misrepresented. Bayle speaks of him as a systematic\nAtheist. Saintes says that he laid the foundations of a Pantheism as\ndestructive to scholastic philosophy as to all revealed religion.\nVoltaire repeatedly writes of Spinoza as an Atheist and teacher of\nAtheism. Samuel Taylor Coleridge speaks of Spinoza as an Atheist, and\nprefaces this opinion with the following passage, which we commend to\nmore orthodox and less acute writers:--\"Little do these men know what\nAtheism is. Not one man in a thousand has either strength of mind, or\ngoodness of heart to be an Atheist. I repeat it--Not one man in a\nthousand has either goodness of heart, or strength of mind, to be an\nAtheist.\" \"And yet,\" says Froude, \"both in friend and enemy alike, there\nhas been a reluctance to see Spinoza as he really was. The Herder and\nSchleiermacher school have claimed him as a Christian, a position which\nno little disguise was necessary to make tenable; the orthodox\nProtestants and Catholics have called him an Atheist, which is still\nmore extravagant; and even a man like Novalis, who, it might have been\nexpected, would have said something reasonable, could find no better\nname for him than a 'Gott trunkener mann,' a God intoxicated man: an\nexpression which has been quoted by every-body who has since written on\nthe subject, and which is about as inapplicable as those laboriously\npregnant sayings usually are. With due allowance for exaggeration, such\na name would describe tolerably the transcendental mystics, a Toler, a\nBoehmen, or a Swedenborg; but with what justice can it be applied to the\ncautious, methodical Spinoza, who carried his thoughts about with him\nfor twenty years, deliberately shaping them, and who gave them at last\nto the world in a form more severe than with such subjects had ever been\nso much as attempted before? With him, as with all great men, there was\nno effort after sublime emotions. He was a plain, practical person; his\nobject in philosophy was only to find a rule by which to govern his own\nactions and his own judgment; and his treatises contain no more than the\nconclusions at which he arrived in this purely personal search, with the\ngrounds on which he rested them.\"\n\nSpinoza, who was wise enough to know that it was utterly useless to\nexpect an unfettered examination of philosophical problems by men who\nare bound to accept as an infallible arbiter any particular book, and\nwho knew that reasonings must be of a very limited character which took\nthe alleged Hebrew Revelation as the centre and starting point for all\ninquiry, and also as the circling limitation line for all\ninvestigation--devoted himself to the task of examining how far the\nordinary orthodox doctrines as to the infallibility of the Old Testament\nwere fairly maintainable. It was for this reason he penned his\n\"Tractatus Theologico-Politicus,\" wherein he says: \"We see that they who\nare most under the influence of superstitious feelings, and who covet\nuncertainties without stint or measure, more especially when they fall\ninto difficulty or danger, cannot help themselves, are the persons, who,\nwith vows and prayers and womanly tears, implore the Divine assistance;\nwho call reason blind, and human wisdom vain; and all, forsooth, because\nthey cannot find an assured way to the vanities they desire.\" \"The\nmainspring of superstition is fear; by fear too is superstition\nsustained and nourished.\" \"Men are chiefly assailed by superstition when\nsuffering from fear, and all they then do in the name of a vain religion\nis, in fact, but the vaporous product of a sorrowful spirit, the\ndelirium of a mind overpowered by terror.\" He proceeds: \"I have often\nwondered that men who boast of the great advantage they enjoy under the\nChristian dispensation--the peace, the joy they experience, the\nbrotherly love they feel towards all in its exercise--should\nnevertheless contend with so much acrimony, and show such intolerance\nand unappeasable hatred towards one another. If faith had to be inferred\nfrom action rather than profession, it would indeed be impossible to say\nto what sect or creed the majority of mankind belong.\" He laid down that\n\"No one is bound by natural law to live according to the pleasure of\nanother, but that every one is by natural title the rightful asserter of\nhis own independence,\" and that \"he or they govern best who concede to\nevery one the privilege of thinking as he pleases, and of saying what he\nthinks.\" Criticising the Hebrew prophets, he points out that \"God used\nno particular style in making his communications; but in the same\nmeasure as the prophet possessed learning and ability, his\ncommunications were either concise and clear, or on the contrary, they\nwere rude, prolix, and obscure.\" The representations of Zechariah, as we\nlearn from the accounts themselves, were so obscure that without an\nexplanation they could not be understood by himself; and those of Daniel\nwere so dark, that even when explained, they were still unintelligible,\nnot to others only, but also to the prophet himself. He argues entirely\nagainst miracles, as either contrary to nature or above nature,\ndeclaring any such to be \"a sheer absurdity,\" \"merum esse absurdum.\" Of\nthe Scriptures themselves he points out that the ancient Hebrew is\nentirely lost. \"Of the authors, or, if you please, writers, of many\nbooks, we either know almost nothing, or we entertain grave doubts as to\nthe correctness with which the several books are ascribed to the parties\nwhose names they bear.\" \"Then we neither know on what occasion, nor at\nwhat time those books were indited, the writers of which are unknown to\nus. Further, we know nothing of the hands into which the books fell; nor\nof the codices which have furnished such a variety of readings, nor\nwhether, perchance, there were not many other variations in other\ncopies.\" Voltaire says of Spinoza: \"Not only in the character of a Jew\nhe attacks the New Testament, but in the character of a scholar he ruins\nthe Old.\"\n\nThe logic of Spinoza was directed to the demonstration of one substance\nwith infinite attributes, for which one substance with infinite\nattributes he had as equivalent the name \"God.\" Some who have since\nfollowed Spinoza, have agreed in his one substance, but have denied the\npossibility of infinite attributes. Attributes or qualities, they urge,\nare attributes of the finite or conditioned, and you cannot have\nattributes of substance except as attributes of its modes. You have in\nthis distinction the division line between Spinozism and Atheism.\nSpinoza recognises infinite intelligence, but Atheism cannot conceive\nintelligence except in relation as quality of the conditioned, and not\nas the essence of the absolute. Spinoza denied the doctrine of freewill,\nas with him all phenomena are of God, so he rejects the ordinary notions\nof good and evil. The popular views of Spinoza in the seventeenth and\neighteenth centuries were chiefly derived from the volumes of his\nantagonists; men learned his name because priests abused him, few had\nperused his works for themselves. To-day we may fairly say that\nSpinoza's logic and his biblical criticisms gave a vigor and force to\nthe heresy of the latter half of the seventeenth and beginning of the\neighteenth century, a directness and effectiveness therebefore wanting.\nAs for the Bible, there was no longer an affected reverence for every\nyod or comma, church traditions were ignored wherever inconsistent with\nreason, and the law itself was boldly challenged when its letter was\nagainst the spirit of human progress.\n\nOne of the greatest promoters of heresy in England was Ralph Cudworth,\nborn 1617, died 1688. He wrote to combat the Atheistical tenets which\nwere then commencing to obtain popularity in England, and was a\ncontroversialist so fair and candid in the statement of the opinions of\nhis antagonists, that he was actually charged with heresy himself, and\nthe epithets of Arian, Socinian, Deist, and even Atheist were freely\nleveled against him. \"He has raised,\" says Dryden, \"such strong\nobjections against the being of a God and Providence, that many think he\nhas not answered them.\" The clamor of bigotry seems to have discouraged\nCudworth, and he left many of his works unprinted. Cousin describes him\nas \"a Platonist, of a firm and profound mind, who bends somewhat under\nthe weight of his erudition.\"\n\nThomas Burnett, born 1635, died 1715, a clergyman of the Church of\nEngland, though in high favor with King William and the famous\nArchbishop Tillotson, is said to have been shut out of preferment in the\nchurch chiefly, if not entirely, on account of his many heterodox views.\nHe did not accept the orthodox notions on the Mosaic account of the\ncreation, fall, and deluge. Regarding the account of the fall as\nallegorical, he argued for the ultimate salvation of everyone, and of\ncourse denied the doctrine of eternal torment. In a curious passage\nrelating to the equivocations of a large number of the clergy in openly\ntaking the oath of allegiance to William III, while secretly supporting\nJames as King, Burnet says: \"The prevarication of too many in so sacred\na matter contributed not a little to fortify the growing Atheism of the\ntime.\"\n\nAs Descartes and Spinoza had been foremost on the continent, so was\nLocke in England, and no sketch of the progress of heresy during the\nseventeenth century would be deserving serious regard which did not\naccord a prominent place to John Locke, whom G.H. Lewes calls \"one of\nthe Wisest of Englishmen,\" and of whom Buckle speaks as \"an innovator in\nhis philosophy, and a Unitarian in his creed.\" He was born in 1632, and\ndied in 1704. Locke, according to his own fashion, was a sincere and\nearnest Christian; but this has not saved him from being furiously\nassailed for the materialistic character of his philosophy, and many\nhave been ready to assert that Locke's principles \"lead to Atheism.\" In\npolitics Locke laid down, that unjust and unlawful force on the part of\nthe Government might and ought to be resisted by force on the part of\nthe citizens. He urged that on questions of theology there ought to be\nno penalties consequent upon the reception or rejection of any\nparticular religious opinion. How far those were right who regarded\nLocke's metaphysical reasoning as dangerous to orthodoxy may be judged\nby the following extract on the origin of ideas:--\n\n\"Follow a child from its birth and observe the alterations that time\nmakes, and you shall find, as the mind by the senses comes more and more\nto be furnished with ideas, it comes to be more and more awake; thinks\nmore, the more it has matter to think on. After some time, it begins to\nknow the objects, which being most familiar with it, have made lasting\nimpressions. Thus it comes, by degrees, to know the persons it daily\nconverses with, and distinguishes them from strangers; which are\ninstances and effects of its coming to retain and distinguish the ideas\nthe senses convey to it; and so we may observe, how the mind by degrees\nimproves in these, and advances to the exercise of those other faculties\nof enlarging, compounding, and abstracting its ideas, and of reasoning\nabout them, and reflecting upon all these.\n\n\"If it shall be demanded then, when a man begins to have any ideas? I\nthink the true answer is, when he first has any sensation. For since\nthere appear not to be any ideas in the mind before the senses have\nconveyed any in, I conceive that ideas in the understanding are coeval\nwith sensation; which is such an impression or emotion, made in some\npart of the body, as produces some perception in the understanding. It\nis about these impressions made on our senses by outward objects, that\nthe mind seems first to employ itself in such operations as we call\nperception, remembering, consideration, reasoning, etc.\n\n\"In time, the mind comes to reflect on its own operations, about the\nideas got by sensation, and thereby stores itself with a new set of\nideas, which I call ideas of reflexion. These are the impressions that\nare made on our senses by outward objects, that are extrinsical to the\nmind; and its own operation, proceeding from powers intrinsical and\nproper to itself, which, when reflected on by itself, becoming also\nobjects of its contemplation, are, as I have said, the original of all\nknowledge. Thus the first capacity of human intellect is, that the mind\nis fitted to receive the impressions made on it, either through the\nsenses, by outward objects, or by its own operations, when it reflects\non them. This is the first step a man makes towards the discovery of\nanything, and the ground-work whereon to build all those notions which\never he shall have naturally in this world. All those sublime thoughts\nwhich tower above the clouds, and reach as high as heaven itself, take\ntheir rise and footing here: in all that good extent wherein the mind\nwanders, in those remote speculations, it may seem to be elevated with,\nit stirs not one jot beyond those ideas which sense or reflexion have\noffered for its contemplation.\n\n\"In this part the understanding is merely passive; and whether or no it\nwill have these beginnings, and, as it were, materials of knowledge, is\nnot in its own power. For the objects of our senses do, many of them,\nobtrude their particular ideas upon our minds, whether we will or no;\nand the operations of our minds will not let us be without, at least,\nsome obscure notions of them. No man can be wholly ignorant of what he\ndoes when he thinks. These simple ideas, when offered to the mind, the\nunderstanding can no more refuse to have, nor alter, when they are\nimprinted, nor blot them out and make new ones itself, than a mirror can\nrefuse, alter, or obliterate the images or ideas which the objects set\nbefore it do therein produce. As the bodies that surround us do\ndiversely affect our organs, the mind is forced to receive the\nimpressions, and cannot avoid the perception of those ideas that are\nannexed to them.\"\n\nThe distinction pointed out by Lewes between Locke and Hobbes and\nGassendi, is that the two latter taught that all our ideas were derived\nfrom sensations, while Locke said there were two sources, not one\nsource, and these two were sensation and reflexion. Locke was in style a\nmore popular writer than Hobbes, and the heretical effect of the\ndoctrines on the mind not being so immediately perceived in consequence\nof Locke's repeated declarations in favor of Christianity, his\nmetaphysical productions were more widely read than those of Hobbes; but\nLocke really teaches the same doctrine as that laid down by Robert Owen\nin his views on the formation of character; and his views on sensation,\nas the primary source of ideas, are fatal to all notions of innate ideas\nand of freewill. Voltaire, speaking of Locke, says:--\"'We shall,\nperhaps, never be capable of knowing whether a being purely material\nthinks or not.' This judicious and guarded observation was considered by\nmore than one divine, as neither more nor less than a scandalous and\nimpious declaration, that the soul is material and mortal. Some English\ndevotees, after their usual manner, sounded the alarm. The superstitious\nare in society what poltroons are in an army--they both feel and excite\ncauseless terror. The cry was, that Mr. Locke wished to overturn\nreligion; the subject, however, had nothing to do with religion at all;\nit was purely a philosophical question, and perfectly independent of\nfaith and revelation.\" One clergyman, the Rev. William Carrol, wrote,\ncharging Atheism as the result of Locke's teaching. The famous Sir Isaac\nNewton even grew so alarmed with the materialistic tendency of Locke's\nphilosophy, that when John Locke was reported sick and unlikely to live,\nit is credibly stated that Newton went so far as to say that it would be\nwell if the author of the essay on the Understanding were already dead.\n\nIn 1689, one Cassimer Leszynski, a Polish knight, was burned at Warsaw\nfor denying the being and providence of a God; but there are no easy\nmeans of learning whether the charge arose from prejudice on the part of\nhis accusers, or whether this unfortunate gentleman really held\nAtheistic views.\n\nPeter Bayle, born at Carlat, in Foix, 1647, died in Holland, 1706, was a\nwriter of great power and brilliancy and wide learning. Without standing\navowedly on the side of scepticism, he did much to promote sceptical\nviews amongst the rapidly growing class of men of letters. He declared\nthat it was better to be an Atheist, than to have a false or unworthy\nidea of God; that a man can be at the same time an Atheist and an honest\nman, and that a people without a religion is capable of good order.\nBayle's writings grew more heretical towards the latter part of his\ncareer, and he suffered considerable persecution at the hands of the\nChurch, for having spoken too plainly of the character of David. He said\nthat \"if David was the man after God's own heart, it must have been by\nhis penitence, not by his crimes.\" Bayle might have added, that the\nrecord of David's penitence is not easily discoverable in any part of\nthe narrative of his life.\n\nMatthew Tindal, born 1656, died 1733, was, though the son of a clergyman\nof the Established Church, one of the first amongst the school of\nDeistical writers who became so prominent in the beginning of the\neighteenth century. Dr. Pye Smith catalogues him as \"an Atheist,\" but we\nknow no ground for this. He was a zealous controversialist, and\ncommencing by attacking priests, he continued his attack against the\nrevelation they preached. He was a frequent writer, but his\n\"Christianity as old as the Creation\" is his chief work, and the one\nwhich has provoked the greatest amount of discussion. It was published\nnearly at the close of his life, and after he had seen others of his\nwritings burned by the common hangman. Dr. Matthew Tindal helped much to\nshake belief in the Bible, those who wrote against him did much more; if\nno one had replied to Tindal, his attacks on revelation would have been\nread by few, but in answering the heretic, Bishop Waterland and his\n_confreres_ gave wider circulation to Tindal's heresy.\n\nJohn Toland was born Nov. 30, 1670, at Londonderry, but was educated in\nScotland. He died 1722. His publications were all about the close of the\nseventeenth and commencement of the eighteenth centuries, and the\nability of his contributions to popular instruction may be judged by the\nabusive epithets heaped upon him by his opponents. While severely\nattacking the bulk of the clergy as misleaders of the people, and while\nalso assailing some of the chief orthodox notions, he yet, either in\norder to escape the law, or from the effect of his religious education,\nprofessed a respect for what he was pleased to call true Christianity,\nbut which we should be inclined to consider, at the least, somewhat\nadvanced Unitarianism. At last, however, his works were ordered to be\nburned by the common hangman, and to escape arrest and prosecution he\nhad to flee to the Continent. Dr. J. Pye Smith describes Toland as a\nPantheist, and calls his Pantheisticon \"an Atheistic Liturgy.\" In one of\nToland's essays he laments \"how hard it is to come to a truth yourself,\nand how dangerous a thing to publish to others.\" The publications of\nToland were none of them very bulky although numerous, and as most of\nthem were fiercely assailed by the orthodox clergy, they helped to\nexcite popular interest in England in the critical examination of the\nScriptures and the doctrines therein taught.\n\nBesides the few authors to whom attention is here drawn, there were\nnumerous men who--each for a little while, and often coming out from the\nlower ranks of the people themselves--stirred the hitherto almost\nstagnant pool of popular thought with some daring utterance or\nextravagant statement. Fanatics some, mystics some, alchemists some,\nmaterialists some, but all crude and imperfect in their grasp of the\nsubject they advocated, they nevertheless all helped to agitate the\nhuman mind, to render it more restless and inquiring, and thus they all\npromoted the march of heresy. One feature of the history of the\nseventeenth century shows how much philosophy had gained ground, and how\ndeep its roots were striking throughout the European world--viz., that\nnearly all the writers wrote in the vulgar tongue of their country, or\nthere were published editions of their works in that tongue. A century\nearlier, and but few escaped from the narrow bonds of learned Latin: two\ncenturies before, and none got outside the Latin folios; but in this\ncentury theology, metaphysics, philosophy, and politics are discussed in\nFrench, German, English, and Italian. The commonest reader may peruse\nthe most learned author, for the writing is in a language which he\ncannot help knowing.\n\nThere were in this century a large number of writers in England and\nthroughout Europe, who, taking the Bible as a starting-point and\nlimitation for their philosophy, broached wonderful theories as to\ncreation, etc., in which reason and revelation were sought to be made\nharmonious. Enfield, a most orthodox writer, in his \"History of\nPhilosophy,\" says: \"Who does not perceive, from the particulars which\nhave been related concerning these Scriptural philosophers, that their\nlabors, however well intended, have been of little benefit to\nphilosophy? Their fundamental error has consisted in supposing that the\nsacred Scriptures were intended, not only to instruct men in all things\nnecessary to their salvation, but to teach the true principles of\nphysical and metaphysical science.\" How pregnant the admission that\nrevelation and science cannot be expected to accord--an admission which\nin truth declares that in all philosophical research it its necessary to\ngo beyond the Bible, if not to go against it--an admission which\ninvolves the declaration, that so long as men are bound by the letter of\nthe Bible, so long all philosophical progress is impossible.\n\nIn this century the English Church lost much of the political power it\nhad hitherto wielded. It was in 1625, that William, Bishop of Lincoln,\nwas dismissed from the office of Lord Keeper, and since his day no\necclesiastic has held the great seal of England, and to-day who even in\nthe Church itself would dream of trying to make a bishop Lord\nChancellor? The church lost ground in the conflict with Charles; this it\nmight perhaps have recovered, but it suffered irretrievable loss of\nprestige in its struggle with William.\n\n\n\n\nChapter IV. The Eighteenth Century\n\n\nTHE eighteenth century deserves that the penman who touches its records\nshall have some virility; for these records contain, not only the\nnarrative of the rapid growth of the new philosophy in France, England,\nand Germany, where its roots had been firmly struck in the previous\ncentury, but they also give the history of a glorious endeavor on the\npart of a down-trodden and long-suffering people, weakened and degraded\nby generations of starvation and oppression, to break the yoke of\ntyranny and superstition. Eighteenth century historians can write how\nthe men of France, after having been cursed by a long race of kings, who\nnever dreamed of identifying their interests with those of the people;\nafter enduring centuries of tyranny from priests, whose only gods were\npower, pleasure, and mammon, and at the hands of nobles, who denied\ncivil rights to their serfs; at last, could endure no longer, but\nelectrified into life by eighteenth-century heresy, \"spurned under foot\nthe idols of tyranny and superstition,\" and sought \"by the influence of\nreason to erect on the ruins of arbitrary power the glorious edifice of\ncivil and religious liberty.\" Why Frenchmen then failed in giving\npermanent success to their heroic endeavor, is not difficult to explain,\nwhen we consider that every tyranny in Europe united against that young\nrepublic to which the monarchy had bequeathed a legacy of a wretched\npauper people, a people whose minds had been hitherto wholly in the\nhands of the priests, whose passions had revolted against wrong, but\nwhose brains were yet too weak for the permanent enjoyment of the\nfreedom temporarily resulting from physical effort. Eighteenth-century\nheresy is especially noticeable for its immediate connexion with\npolitical change. For the first time in European history, the great mass\ncommenced to yearn for the assertion in government of democratic\nprinciples. The French Republican Revolution, which overthrew Louis XVI\nand the Bastille, was only possible because the heretical teachers who\npreceded it had weakened the divine right of kingcraft; and it was\nultimately unsuccessful, only because an overwhelming majority of the\npeople were as yet not sufficiently released from the thraldom of the\nchurch, and therefore fell before the allied despotisms of Europe, who\nwere aided by the Catholic priests, who naturally plotted against the\nspirit which seemed likely to make men too independent to be pious.\n\nIn Germany the liberation of the masses from the dominion of the Church\nof Rome was effected with the, at first, active believing concurrence of\nthe nation; in England this was not so. Protestantism here was the\nresult rather of the influence and interests of the King and Court, and\nof the indifference of the great body of the people. The Reformed Church\nof England, sustained by the crown and aristocracy, has generally left\nthe people to find their own way to heaven or hell, and has only\nrequired abstinence from avowed denial of, or active opposition to, its\ntenets. Its ministers have usually preached with the same force to a few\nworshippers scattered over their grand cathedrals and numerous churches\nas to a thronging crowd, but in each case there has been a lack of\nvitality in the sermon. It is only when the material interests of the\nchurch have been apparently threatened that vigor has been shown on the\npart of its teachers.\n\nIt is a curious fact, and one for comment hereafter, that while in the\nmodern struggle for the progress of heresy its sixteenth-century pages\npresent many most prominent Italian names, when we come to the\neighteenth century there are but few such names worthy special notice;\nit is no longer from the extreme South, but from France, Germany, and\nEngland, that you have the great array of Freethinking warriors. Those\nwhom Italy boasts, too, are now nearly all in the Idealistic ranks.\n\nWe commenced the list by a brief reference to Bernard Man-deville, a\nDutch physician, born at Dordrecht in 1670, and who died in 1733; a\nwriter with great power as a satirist, whose fable of the \"Bees, or\nPrivate Vices made Public Benefits,\" not only served as source for much\nof Helvetius, but had the double honor of an indictment at the Middlesex\nsession, and an answer from the pen of Bishop Berkeley.\n\nOne of the early, and perhaps one of the most important promoters of\nheresy in the United Kingdom, was George Berkeley, an Irishman by birth.\nHe was born on the 12th of March, 1684, at Kilcrin, and died at Oxford\nin 1753. It was this writer to whom Pope assigned \"every virtue under\nheaven,\" and of whom Byron wrote:\n\n    \"When Bishop Berkeley said 'there was no matter,'\n    And proved it--'twas no matter what he said:\n    They say his system 'tis in vain to batter,\n    Too subtle for the airiest human head;\n    And yet who can believe it?\"\n\nA writer in the \"Encyclopaedia Metropolitana\" describes him as \"the one,\nperhaps, whose heart was most free from scepticism, and whose\nunderstanding was most prone to it.\" Berkeley is here dealt with as one\nspecially contributing to the growth of sceptical thought, and not as an\nIdealist only. Arthur Collier published, about the same time as\nBerkeley, several works in which absolute Idealism is advocated. Collier\nand Berkeley were mouthpieces for the expression of an effort at\nresistance against the growing Spinozistic school. They wrote against\nsubstance assumed as the \"noumenon lying underneath all phenomena--the\nsubstratum supporting all qualities--the something in which all\naccidents inhere.\" Collier and his writings are almost unknown;\nBerkeley's name has become famous, and his arguments have served to\nexcite far wider scepticism than have those of any other Englishman of\nhis age. Most religious men who read him misunderstand him, and nearly\nall misrepresent his theory. Hume, speaking of Berkeley, says: \"Most of\nthe writings of that very ingenious philosopher form the best lessons of\nscepticism which are to be found, either among the ancient or modern\nphilosophers, Bayle not excepted. He professes, however, in his title\npage (and undoubtedly with great truth) to have composed his book\nagainst the sceptics, as well as against the Atheists and Freethinkers.\nBut that all his arguments, though otherwise intended, are in reality\nmerely sceptical, appears from this, that they admit of no answer, and\nproduce no conviction.\"\n\nBerkeley wrote for those who \"want a demonstration of the existence and\nimmateriality of God, or the natural immortality of the soul,\" and his\nphilosophy was intended to check materialism. The key-note of his works\nmay be found in his declaration: \"The only thing whose existence I deny,\nis that which philosophers call Matter or corporeal substance.\" The\ndefinition given by Berkeley of matter is one which no materialist will\nbe ready to accept, i.e., \"an inert, senseless substance in which\nextension, figure, and motion do actually exist.\" The \"Principles of\nHuman Knowledge\" is the work in which Berkeley's Idealism is chiefly set\nforth, and many have been the volumes and pamphlets written in reply.\nWhatever might have been Berkeley's intention as to refuting scepticism,\nthe result of his labors was to increase it in no ordinary degree. Dr.\nPye Smith thus summarises Berkeley's views:--\"He denied the existence of\nmatter as a cause of our perceptions, but firmly maintained the\nexistence of created and dependent spirits, of which every man is one;\nthat to suppose the existence of sensible qualities and of a material\nworld, is an erroneous deduction from the fact of our perceptions; that\nthose perceptions are nothing but ideas and thoughts in our minds; that\nthese are produced in perfect uniformity, order, and consistency in all\nminds, so that their occurrence is according to fixed rules, which may\nbe called the laws of nature; that the Deity is either the immediate or\nthe mediate cause of these perceptions, by his universal operation on\ncreated minds; and that the created mind has a power of managing these\nperceptions, so that volitions arise, and all the phenomena of moral\naction and responsibility. The great reply to this is, that it is a\nhypothesis which cannot be proved, which is highly improbable, and which\nseems to put upon the Deity the inflicting on man a perpetual delusion.\"\n\nThe weakness of Berkeley's system as a mere question of logic is, that\nwhile he requires the most rigorous demonstration of the existence of\nwhat he defines as matter, he assumes an eternal spirit with various\nattributes, and also creates spirits of various sorts. He creates the\nstates of mind resulting from the sensation of surrounding phenomena\ninto ideas, existing independent of the ego, when in truth, man's ideas\nare not in addition to man's mind; but the aggregate of sensative\nability, and the result of its exercise is the mind, just as the\naggregate of functional ability and activity is life. The foundation of\nBerkeley's faith in the invisible \"eternal spirit,\" in angels as\n\"created spirits,\" is difficult to discover, when you accept his\nargument for the rejection of visible phenomena. He in truth should have\nrejected everything save his own mind, for the mental processes are\nclearly not always reliable. In dreams, in delirium, in insanity, in\ntemporary disease of particular nerves of sensation, in some phases of\nmagnetic influence, the ideas which Berkeley sustains so forcibly are\nadmittedly delusions.\n\nAs in George Berkeley, so we have in Bishop Butler, an illustration of\nthe endeavor to check the rapidly enlarging scepticism of this century.\nJoseph Butler was born in 1692, died 1752, and will be long known by his\nfamous work on the \"Analogy of Religion to the course of Nature.\" In\nthis place it is not our duty to do more than point out a few features\nof the argument, observing that this elaborate piece of special pleading\nfor natural and revealed religion, is evidence that danger was\napprehended by the clergy, from the spread of Freethought views amongst\nthe masses. A popular reply was written to provide against the growing\npopular objection. Bishop Butler argues that \"we know that we are endued\nwith certain capacities of action, of happiness and misery; for we are\nconscious of acting, of enjoying pleasure, and of suffering pain. Now\nthat we have these powers and capacities before death, is a presumption\nthat we shall retain them through and after death; indeed, a probability\nof it abundantly sufficient to act upon, unless there be some positive\nreason to think that death is the destruction of those living powers.\"\nIt may be fairly submitted, in reply, that here the argument from\nanalogy is as utterly faulty, as if in the spring season a traveller\nshould say of a wayside pool, it is here before the summer sun shines\nupon it, and will be here during and after the summer drought, when\nordinary experience would teach him that as the pool is only gathered\nduring the rainy season in the hollow ground, so in the dry hot summer\ndays, it will be gradually evaporated under the blazing rays of the July\nsun. As to the human capacities, experience teaches us that they have\nchanged with the condition of the body; emotional feelings and animal\npassions, the gratification of which ensured temporary pleasure or pain,\nhave varied, have been newly felt, and have died out in different\nperiods and conditions of our lives, and the presumption is against the\ncomplete endurance of all these \"capacities for action,\" etc., even\nduring the whole life, and much more strongly, therefore, against their\nendurance after death. Besides which--continuing the argument from\nanalogy--my \"capacities\" having only been manifested since my body has\nexisted, and in proportion to my physical ability, the presumption is\nrather that the manifestation which commenced with the body will finish\nas the body finishes. Further, it is fair to presume that \"death is the\ndestruction of those living powers,\" for death is the cessation of\norganic functional activity; a cessation consequent on some change or\ndestruction of organisation. Of course, the word \"destruction\" is not\nhere used in any sense of annihilation of substance, but as meaning such\na change of condition that vital phenomena are no longer manifested.\nBut, says Butler, \"we know not at all what death is in itself, but only\nsome of its effects, such as the dissolution of flesh, skin, and bones,\nand these effects do in nowise appear to imply the destruction of a\nliving agent.\" Here, perhaps, there is an unjustifiable assumption in\nthe words \"living agent,\" for if by living agent is only meant the\nanimal which dies, then the destruction of flesh, skin, and bones does\nfairly imply the destruction of the living agent, but if by living agent\nis intended more than this, then the argument is speciously and unfairly\nworded. But beyond this, if Bishop Butler's argument has any value, it\nproves too much. He says: \"Nor can we find anything throughout the whole\nanalogy of nature, to afford us even the slightest presumption that\nanimals ever lose their living powers... by death.\" That is, Bishop\nButler, applies his argument for a future state of existence, not only\nto man, but to the whole animal kingdom; and it may be fairly conceded\nthat there is as much ground to presume that man will live again, as\nthere is that the worm will live again, which, being impaled upon a\nhook, is eaten by the gudgeon, or that the gudgeon will live again\nwhich, threadled as a bait, is torn and mangled to death by a ravenous\npike, or that the pike will live again after it has been kept out of\nwater till rigid, then gutted, scaled, stuffed with savory condiments,\nbroiled, and ultimately eaten by Piscator and his family. Bishop\nButler's argument that because pleasure or pain is uniformly found to\nfollow the acting or not acting in some particular manner, there is\npresumptive analogy in favor of future rewards and punishments by Deity,\nappears weak in the extreme. According to Butler, God is the author of\nnature. Nature's laws are such, that punishment, immediate or remote,\nfollows nonobservance, and reward, more or less immediate, is the result\nof observance; and because God is, by Butler's argument, assumed as the\nauthor of nature, and has therefore already punished or rewarded once,\nwe are following Butler, to presume that he will after death punish or\nreward again for an action upon which he has already adjudicated. In his\nchapter on the Moral Government of God, Butler says: \"As the manifold\nappearances of design and of final causes in the constitution of the\nworld prove it to be the work of an intelligent mind, so the particular\nfinal causes of pleasure and pain distributed amongst his creatures\nprove that they are under his government--what may be called his natural\ngovernment of creatures endowed with sense and reason.\" But taking\nBishop Butler's own position, what sort of government is demonstrated by\nthis argument from analogy? God, according to Bishop Butler's reasoning,\ndesigned the whale to swallow the Clio Borealis, which latter he\ndesigned to be so swallowed, but which he nevertheless invested with\nsome 360,000 suckers, to enable it in its turn to seize the minute\nanimalculae on which it lives. God designed Brutus to kill Cesar, Orsini\nto be beheaded by Louis Napoleon. These, according to Butler, would be\nall under the special control of God's government. Bishop Butler's\ntheory that our present life is a state of trial and probation is met by\nthe difficulty, that while he assumes the justice and benevolence of God\nas moral governor, he has the fact that many exist with organisations\nand capacities so originally different, that it is manifestly most\nunfair to put one and the same reward, or one and the same punishment\nfor all. The Esquimaux or Negro is not on a level at the outset of life\nwith the Caucasian races. How from analogy can anyone argue in favor of\nthe doctrine that an impartial judge who had started them in the race of\nlife unfairly matched, would put the same prize before all, none of the\nstarters being handicapped? Bishop Butler's argument on the doctrine of\nnecessity, is that which one might expect to find from a hired _nisi\nprius_ advocate, but which is read with regret coming from the pen of a\ngentleman who ought to be striving to convince his erring brethren by\nthe words of truth alone. He says, suppose a child to be educated from\nhis earliest youth in the principles of \"fatalism,\" what then? The reply\nis, that a necessitarian knowing that a certain education of the human\nmind was most conducive to human happiness, would strive to impart to\nhis children education of that character. That a worse \"fatalism\" is\ninculcated in the doctrine of a foreordaining and ever-directing\nprovidence, planning and controlling every one of the child's actions,\nthan ever was taught in necessitarian essays. That the child would be\ntaught the laws of existence, and would be shown how certain conduct\nresulted in pleasure, and certain other conduct was during life attended\nwith pain, and that the result of such teaching would be far more\nefficacious in its moral results, than the inculcation of a present\nresponsibility, and an ultimate heaven and hell, in which latter\ndoctrine, nearly all Christians profess to believe, but nearly all act\nas if it were not of the slightest consequence whether any such paradise\nor infernal region exists.\n\nHenry St. John, Lord Bolingbroke, born October 1, 1672, died November\n15, 1751, may be taken as one of the school of polished deistical\nwriters, who, though comparatively few, fairly enough represents the\nreligious opinions of the large majority of the journalists of the\npresent day. In the course of Bolingbroke's \"Letters on the Study of\nHistory\" a strong sceptical spirit is manifested, and he speaks in one\nof \"the share which the divines of all religions have taken in the\ncorruption of history.\" In another he thus deals with the question of\nthe Bible:--\"It has been said by Abbadie, and others, 'that the\naccidents which have happened to alter the texts of the Bible, and to\ndisfigure, if I may say so, the scriptures in many respects, could not\nhave been prevented without a perpetual standing miracle, and that a\nperpetual standing miracle is not in the order of providence.' Now I can\nby no means subscribe to this opinion. It seems evident to my reason\nthat the very contrary must be true; if we suppose that God acts towards\nmen according to the moral fitness of things; and if we suppose that he\nacts arbitrarily, we can form no opinion at all. I think these accidents\nwould not have happened, or that the scriptures would have been\npreserved entirely in their genuine purity notwithstanding these\naccidents, if they had been entirely dictated by the Holy Ghost: and the\nproof of this probable proposition, according to our clearest and most\ndistinct ideas of wisdom and moral fitness, is obvious and easy. But\nthese scriptures are not so come down to us: they are come down broken\nand confused, full of additions, interpolations, and transpositions,\nmade we neither know when, nor by whom; and such, in short, as never\nappeared on the face of any other book, on whose authority men have\nagreed to rely. This being so, my lord, what hypothesis shall we follow?\nShall we adhere to some such distinction as I have mentioned? Shall we\nsay, for instance, that the scriptures were originally written by the\nauthors to whom they are vulgarly ascribed, but that these authors writ\nnothing by inspiration, except the legal, the doctrinal, and the\nprophetical parts, and that in every other respect their authority is\npurely human, and therefore fallible? Or shall we say that these\nhistories are nothing more than compilations of old traditions, and\nabridgements of old records, made in later times, as they appear to\nevery one who reads them without prepossession and with attention?\"\n\nIt has been alleged that Pope's verse is but another rendering of\nBolingbroke's views without his \"aristocratic nonchalance,\" and that\nsome passages of Pope regarded as hostile to revealed religion, were\nspecially due to the influence of Bolingbroke; and more than one critic\nhas professed to trace identities of thought and expression in order to\nshow that Pope was largely indebted to the published works of St. John.\n\nDavid Hume was born at Edinburgh, 26th April, 1711, and died 1776. He\ncreated a new school of Freethinkers, and is to-day one of the most\nesteemed amongst sceptical authors. He was a profound thinker, and an\neasy, elegant writer, who did much to give a force and solidity to\nextreme heretical reasonings, which they had hitherto been regarded as\nlacking. His heretical essays have had a far wider circulation since his\ndeath than they enjoyed during his life. Many volumes have been issued\nin the fruitless endeavor to refute him, and all these have contributed\nto widen the circle of his readers. He adopted and advocated the\nutilitarian and necessitarian theory of morals, and wrote of ordinary\ntheism and religion as arising from personification of unknown causes\nfor general or special phenomena. He held and advanced the idea, which\nBuckle so fully states, and endeavors to prove in his \"History of\nCivilisation\"--viz., that general laws operate amongst peoples, and\ninfluence and determine their so-called moral conduct, much as other\nlaws do the orbits of planets, the occurrences of eclipses, etc. His\narguments against miracles, as evidences for revealed religion, remain\nunrefuted, although they have been made the subject of many attacks. He\ncontends, in effect, that in each account of a miraculous occurrence\nthere is always more _prima facie_ probability of error, or bad faith on\nthe part of the narrator, than of interference with those invariable\nsequences known as natural laws, and there was really no reply in the\nconclusion of Dr. Campbell, to the effect that we have equally to trust\nhuman testimony for an account of the laws of nature and for the\nnarratives of miracles, for in truth you never have the same character\nof human testimony for the latter as for the former. And, further, while\nin the case of human testimony as to natural events, it is evidence\nwhich you may test and compare with your own experience. This is not so\nas to miracles, declared at once to be out of the range of all ordinary\nexperience. \"Men,\" he says, \"are carried by a natural instinct or\nprepossession to repose faith in their senses. When they follow this\nblind and powerful instinct of nature, they always suppose the very\nimages presented to the senses to be the external objects, and never\nentertain any suspicion that the one are nothing but representatives of\nthe other. But this universal and primary opinion of all men is soon\ndestroyed by the slightest philosophy, which teaches us that nothing can\never be present to the mind but an image or perception. So far, then, we\nare necessitated by reasoning to contradict the primary instincts of\nnature, and to embrace a new system with regard to the evidence of our\nsenses. But here philosophy finds herself extremely embarrassed, when\nshe would obviate the cavils and objections of the sceptics. She can no\nlonger plead the infallible and irresistible instinct of nature, for\nthat led us to quite a different system, which is acknowledged fallible,\nand even erroneous, and to justify this pretended philosophical system\nby a chain of clear and convincing argument, or even any appearance of\nargument, exceeds the power of all human capacity. Do you follow the\ninstinct and propensities of nature in assenting to the veracity of the\nsenses? But these lead you to believe that the very perception or\nsensible image is the external object--(Idealism.) Do you disclaim this\nprinciple in order to embrace a more rational opinion, that the\nperceptions are only representations of something external? You here\ndepart from your natural propensities, and more obvious sentiments; and\nyet are not able to satisfy your reason, which can never find any\nconvincing argument from experience to prove that the perceptions are\nconnected with external objects--(Scepticism.)\"\n\nCharles de Secondat Baron de Montesquieu, born in 1689 near Bordeaux,\ndied at Paris 1755, who earned considerable fame by his \"Lettres\nPersanes,\" is more famous for his oft-referred to work \"L'Esprit des\nLois.\" Victor Cousin describes him as \"the man of our country who has\nbest comprehended history, and who first gave an example of true\nhistoric method.\" In the publication of certain of his ideas on history,\nMontesquieu was the layer of the foundation-stone for an edifice which\nBuckle would probably have gloriously crowned had his life been longer.\nVoltaire, who sharply criticises Montesquieu, declares that he has\nearned the eternal gratitude of Europe by his grand views and his bold\nattacks on tyranny, superstition, and grinding taxation. Montesquieu\nurged that virtue is the true essence of republicanism, but misled by\nthe mistaken notions of honor held by his predecessors and\ncontemporaries, he declared honor to be the principle of monarchical\ninstitutions. Voltaire reminds him that \"it is in courts that men,\ndevoid of honor, often attain to the highest dignities; and it is in\nrepublics that a known dishonorable citizen is seldom trusted by the\npeople with public concerns.\" Montesquieu wrote in favor of a\nconstitutional monarchy such as then existed in England, and his work\nshadowed forth a future for the middle class in France.\n\nFrancois Marie Arouet Voltaire, born 20th February, 1694, at Chatenay,\ndied 30th May, 1778, may be fairly written of as the man, to whose\nfertile brain and active pen, to whose great genius, fierce irony, and\nthorough humanity, we owe much more of the rapid change of popular\nthought in Europe during the last century, than to any other man. His\nwit, like the electric flash, spared nothing; his love for his kind\nwould have made him the protector of everything weak, his desire to\nprotect himself from the consequences of his truest utterances often\ndims the hero-halo with which his name is surrounded. Born and trained\namongst a corrupt and selfish class, it is not wonderful that we find\nsome of their pernicious habits clinging to parts of his career. On the\ncontrary, it is more wonderful to find that he has shaken off so much of\nthe consequences of his education. Neither in politics nor in theology\nwas he so very extreme in his utterances as many deemed him, for while\nhe occasionally severely handled individual monarchs, we do not find him\nthe preacher of republicanism. On the contrary, he is often severe\nagainst some of the advanced political views of Jean Jacques Rousseau.\nHe nevertheless suggests that it might have been \"the art of working\nmetals which originally made kings, and the art of casting cannons which\nnow maintains them,\" and as a commentary on kingly conduct in the matter\nof taxation, declares that \"a shepherd ought to shear his sheep and not\nto flay them.\" In theological controversy he wrote as a Theist, and\ndeclares \"Atheism and Fanaticism\" to be \"two monsters which may tear\nSociety in pieces, but the Atheist preserves his reason, which checks\nhis propensity to mischief, while the fanatic is under the influence of\na madness constantly urging him on.\" For the ancient Jews, and for the\nHebrew records, Voltaire entertained so thorough a feeling of\ncontemptuous detestation, that in his \"Defense de mon Oncle,\" and his\narticles and letters on the Jews, we find utter disbelief in them as a\nchosen people, and the strongest abhorrence of their brutal habits,\nheightened in expression by the scathing satire of his phrases. To the\nmore modern descendants of Abraham he said: \"We have repeatedly driven\nyou away through avarice; we have recalled you through avarice and\nstupidity; we still, in more towns than one, make you pay for liberty to\nbreathe the air; we have, in more kingdoms than one, sacrificed you to\nGod; we have burned you as holocausts--for I will not follow your\nexample, and dissemble that we have offered up sacrifices of human\nblood; all the difference is, that our priests, content with applying\nyour money to their own use, have had you burned by laymen; while your\npriests always immolated their human victims with their own sacred\nhands. You were monsters of cruelty and fanaticism in Palestine; we have\nbeen so in Europe.\"\n\nWriting on miracles, Voltaire asks: \"For what purpose would God perform\na miracle? To accomplish some particular design upon living beings? He\nwould then, in reality, be supposed to say--I have not been able to\neffect by my construction of the universe, by my divine decrees, by my\neternal laws, a particular object; I am now going to change my eternal\nideas and immutable laws, to endeavor to accomplish what I have not been\nable to do by means of them. This would be an avowal of his weakness,\nnot of his power; it would appear in such a being an inconceivable\ncontradiction. Accordingly, therefore, to dare to ascribe miracles to\nGod is, if man can in reality insult God, actually offering him that\ninsult. It is saying to him--You are a weak and inconsistent being. It\nis therefore absurd to believe in miracles; it is, in fact, dishonoring\nthe divinity.\"\n\nThose who are inclined to attack the character of Voltaire should read\nthe account of his endeavors for the Calas family. How, when old Calas\nhad been broken alive on the wheel at Toulouse, and his family were\nruined, Voltaire took up their case, aided them with means, spared no\neffort of his pen or brain, and ultimately achieved the great victory of\nreversing the unjust sentence, and obtaining compensation for the\nfamily. If, then, these Voltaire-haters have not learned to love this\ngreat heretic, let them study the narrative of his even more successful\nendeavors on behalf of the Sirvens; more successful, because in this\ncase he took up the fight before an unjust judgment could be delivered,\nand thus prevented the repetition of such an iniquitous execution as had\ntaken place in the Calas case. The cowardly slanders as to his conduct\nwhen dying are not worth notice; those spit on the grave of the dead who\nwould not have dared to look in the face of the living.\n\nClaude Adrian Helvetius was born at Paris 1715, and died December, 1771.\nHis best known works are \"De l'Esprit,\" published 1758: \"Essai sur\nl'Origine des Connaissances Humaines,\" 1746; \"Traite des Systemes,\"\n1749; \"Traite des Sensations,\" 1758. Rousseau wrote in reply to\nHelvetius, but when the Parliament of Paris condemned the work \"De\nl'Esprit,\" and it was in consequence burned by the common hangman,\nRousseau withdrew his refutatory volume. Helvetius argues that any\nreligion, of which the chiefs are intolerant, and the conduct of which\nis expensive to the state, \"cannot long be the religion of an\nenlightened and well governed nation. The people that submit to it will\nlabor only to maintain the ease and luxury of the priesthood; each of\nits inhabitants will be nothing more than a slave to the sacerdotal\npower. A religion to be good should be tolerant and little expensive.\nIts clergy should have no authority over the people. A dread of the\npriest debases the mind and the soul, makes the one brutish and the\nother slavish. Must the ministers of the altar always be armed with the\nsword of the State? Can the barbarities committed by their intolerance\never be forgotten? The earth is yet drenched with the blood they have\nspilled. Civil tolerance alone is not sufficient to secure the peace of\nnations. Every dogma is a seed of discord and injustice sown amongst\nmankind.\"\n\n\"Why do you make the Supreme Being resemble an eastern tyrant? Why make\nhim punish slight faults with eternal torment? Why thus put the name of\nthe Divinity at the bottom of the portrait of the devil? Why oppress the\nsoul with a load of fear, break its springs, and of a worshipper of\nJesus make a vile, pusillanimous slave? It is the malignant who paint a\nmalignant God. What is their devotion? A veil for their crimes.\"\n\n\"Let not the rewards of heaven be made the price of trifling religious\noperations, which convey a diminutive idea of the Eternal and a false\nconception of virtue; its rewards should never be assigned to fasting,\nhaircloth, a blind submission, and self-castigation. The men who place\nthese operations among the virtues, might as well place those of\nleaping, dancing, and tumbling on the rope.\" \"Humility may be held in\nveneration by the dwellers in a monastery or a convent, it favors the\nmeanness and idleness of a monastic life. But ought humility to be\nregarded as the virtue of the people? No.\" Speaking of the Pagan\nsystems, Helvetius says: \"All the fables of mythology were mere emblems\nof certain principles of nature.\"\n\nBaron d'Holbach, a native of the Palatinate, born January 1723, died\n21st January, 1789, deserves special notice, as being the man whose\nhouse was the gathering place of the knot of writers and thinkers who\nstruck light and life into the dark and deadened brain of France. He is\ngenerally reputed to have been the author of that well-known work, the\n\"System of Nature,\" which was issued as if by Mirabaud. This work,\nalthough it was fiercely assailed at the time by the pen of Voltaire,\nand by the _plaidorie_ of the prosecuting Avocat-General, and has since\nbeen attacked by hundreds who had never read it, yet remains a\nwonderfully popular exposition of the power-gathering heresy of the\ncentury, and, as far as we are aware, has never received efficient\nreply. Probably next to Paine's works, it had in England during the\nsecond quarter of this century the widest circulation of any\nanti-theological book, this circulation extending through the\nmanufacturing ranks. In the eighteenth century Mirabaud could, in\nEngland, only be found in the hands of the few, but fifty years had\nwondrously multiplied the number of readers.\n\nJoseph Priestley was born near Leeds, 13th March, 1733, and being\ntowards the latter part of his life driven out of England, by the\npersecuting spirit evinced towards him, and which had been specially\nexcited by his republican tendencies, he died at Northumberland,\nPennsylvania, on the 6th February, 1804. Originally a Church of England\nclergyman, his first notable inclination towards heterodoxy manifested\nitself in hesitation as to the doctrine of the atonement. He ultimately\nrejected the immortality and immateriality of the soul, argued for\nnecessitarianism, and earned considerable unpopularity by the boldness\nof some of his sentiments on political as well as theological matters.\nPriestley was one of the rapidly multiplying instances of heresy alike\nin religion and politics, but he provoked the most bitter antagonism.\nHis works were burned by the common hangman, his house, library, and\nscientific instruments were destroyed by an infuriate and pious mob.\nDespite all this, his heresy, according to his own view of it, was not\nof a very outrageous character, for he believed in Deity, in revealed\nreligion, and in Christianity, rather putting the blame on misconduct of\nalleged Christians. He said: \"The wretched forms under which\nChristianity has long been generally exhibited, and its degrading\nalliance with, or rather its subjection to, a power wholly heterogeneous\nto it, and which has employed it for the most unworthy purposes, has\nmade it contemptible and odious in the eyes of all sensible men, who are\nnow everywhere casting off the very profession and every badge of it.\nEnlightened Christians must themselves, in some measure, join with\nunbelievers in exposing whatever will not bear examination in or about\nreligion.\" His writings on scientific topics were most voluminous; his\nmost heretical volumes are those on \"Matter and Spirit.\"\n\nEdward Gibbon was born at Putney, the 27th April, 1737, and died 16th\nJanuary, 1794. He was a polished and painstaking writer, aristocratic in\nhis tendencies and associations, who had educated himself into a\ndisbelief in the principal dogmas of Christianity, but who loved the\npeace and quietude of an easy life too much to enter the lists as an\nactive antagonist of the Church. His works, especially the fifteenth and\nsixteenth chapters of \"The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,\" have\nbeen regarded as infidel in their tendency, rather from what has been\nleft unsaid than from the direct statements against Christianity. The\nsneer at the evidence of prophecy, or the doubt of the reality of\nmiraculous evidences, is guardedly expressed. It is only when Gibbon can\ncouch his lance against some reckless and impudent forger of Christian\nevidences, such as Eusebius, that you have anything like a bold\ncondemnation. A prophecy or a miracle is treated tenderly, and if\nkilled, it is rather with over-affectionate courtesy than by rough\nhandling. In some parts of his vindications of the attacked passages,\nGibbon's scepticism finds vent in the collection and quotation of\nunpleasantly heretical views of others, but he carefully avoids\ncommitting himself to very distinct personal declarations of disbelief;\nhe claims to be the unbiased historian recording fact, and leaving\nothers to form their own conclusions. It would perhaps be most\nappropriate to express his convictions as to the religions of the world,\nin nearly the same words as those which he used to characterise the\nvarious modes of worship at Rome: \"All considered by the people as\nequally true, by the philosopher as equally false, and by the magistrate\nas equally useful.\"\n\nPierre John George Cabanis, born at Conac, near Breves 5th June, 1757,\ndied 6th May, 1808, following Condillac in many respects, was one of\nthose whose physiological investigations have opened out wide fields of\nknowledge in psychology, and who did much to promote the establishment\nin France, America, and England, of a new school of Freethinkers.\n\"Subject to the action of external bodies,\" he says, \"man finds in the\nimpressions these bodies make on his organs, at once his knowledge and\nthe causes of his continued existence, for to live is to feel; and in\nthat admirable chain of phenomena which constitute his existence, every\nwant depends on the development of some faculty; every faculty by its\nvery development satisfies some want, and the faculties grow by\nexercise, as the wants extend with the facility of satisfying them. By\nthe continual action of external bodies on the senses of man, results\nthe most remarkable part of his existence. But is it true that the\nnervous centres only receive and combine the impressions which reach\nthem from the bodies? Is it true that no image or idea is formed in the\nbrain, and that no determination of the sensative organ takes place,\nother than by virtue of these same impressions on the senses strictly\nso-called? The faculty of feeling and of spontaneous movement forms the\ncharacter of animal nature. The faculty of feeling consists in the\nproperty possessed by the nervous system of being warned by the\nimpressions produced on its different parts, and notably on its\nextremities. These impressions are internal or external. External\nimpressions, when perception is distinct, are called sensations.\nInternal impressions are very often vague and confused, and the animal\nis then only warned by their effects, and does not clearly distinguish\ntheir connexion with the causes. The former result from the application\nof external objects to the organs of sense, and on them ideas depend.\nThe latter result from the development of the regular functions, or from\nthe maladies to which each organ is subject; and from these issue those\ndeterminations which bear the name of instincts. Feeling and movement\nare linked together. Every movement is determined by an impression, and\nthe nerves, as the organs of feeling, animate and direct the motor\norgans. In feeling, the nervous organ reacts on itself. In movement it\nreacts on other parts, to which it communicates the contractile faculty,\nthe simple and fecund principle of all animal movement. Finally, the\nvital functions can exercise themselves by the influence of some nervous\nramifications, isolated from the system--the instinctive faculties can\ndevelop themselves, even when the brain is almost wholly destroyed, and\nwhen it seems wholly inactive. But for the formation of thoughts, it is\nnecessary that the brain should exist, and be in a healthy condition; it\nis the special organ of thought.\"\n\nThomas Paine, the most famous Deist of modern times, was born at\nThetford, on the 29th January, 1737, and died 8th June, 1809. It will\nhardly be untrue to say that the famous \"rebellious needleman\" has been\nthe most popular writer in Great Britain and America against revealed\nreligion, and that his works, from their plain clear language, have in\nthose countries had, and still have, a far wider circulation than those\nof any other modern sceptical author. His anti-theology was allied to\nhis republicanism; he warred alike against church and throne, and his\nimpeachment of each was couched in the plainest Anglo-Saxon. His name\nbecame at the same time a word of terror to the aristocracy and to the\nclergy. In England numerous prosecutions were commenced against the\nvendors of his political and theological works, and against persons\nsuspected of giving currency to his views. The peace-officers searched\npoor men's houses to discover his dreaded works. Lancashire and\nYorkshire artisans read him by stealth, and assembled in corners of\nfields that they might discuss the \"Age of Reason,\" and yet be safe from\nsurprise by the authorities. Heavy sentences were passed upon men\nconvicted of promulgating his opinions; but all without effect, the\nforbidden fruit found eager gatherers. Paine appears to have been tinged\nwith scepticism from his early boyhood, but it was as a democratic\nwriter that he first achieved literary fame. His \"Age of Reason\" was the\nculminating blow which the dying eighteenth century aimed at the Hebrew\nand Christian records. Theretofore scholarly philosophers,\nmetaphysicians, and critics had written for their fellows, and whether\nor not any of the mass read and understood, the authors cared but\nlittle. Now the people were addressed by one of themselves in language\nstartling in its plainness. Paine was not a deep examiner of\nmetaphysical problems, but he was terribly in earnest in his rejection\nof an impossible creed.\n\nCharles Francois Dupuis was born near Chaumont, in France, the 16th Oct,\n1742, died 29th Sept, 1809. He played a prominent part in the great\nrevolutionary movement, and was Secretary to the National Convention.\nHis famous work, \"L'Origine de tous les Cultes,\" is one of the grand\nheresy marks of the eighteenth century. Himself a Pantheist, he searched\nthrough the mythic traditions of the Greeks, the Egyptians, the Hindus,\nand the Hebrews, and as a result, sought to demonstrate a common origin\nfor all religions. Dr. John Pye Smith classes Dupuis as an Atheist, but\nthis is most certainly an incorrect classification. He did not believe\nin creation, nor could he go outside the universe to search for its\ncause, but he regarded God as _\"la force universelle et eternellement\nactive,_ \" which permeated and animated everything. Dupuis was an\nexample of a new and rapidly increasing class of Freethinking\nwriters--i.e., those who, not content with doubting the divine origin of\nthe religions they attacked, sought to explain the source and progress\nof the various systems. He urges that all religions find their base in\nthe attempts at personification of some one or other, or of the whole of\nthe forces of the universe, and shows what an important part the sun and\nmoon have been made to play in the Egyptian, Greek, and Hindu\nmythologies. He argues that the fabulous biographies of Hercules,\nBacchus, Osiris, Mithra, and Jesus, find their common origin in the\nsun-worship, thus cloaked and hidden from the vulgar in each country. He\ndoes not attack the Hebrew Records as simply inaccurate, but endeavors\nto show clear Sabaistic foundation for many of the most important\nnarratives. The works of Dupuis and Dulaure should be read together;\nthey contain the most complete amongst the many attempts to trace out\nthe common origins of the various mythologies of the world. In the ninth\nchapter of Dupuis' great work, he deals with the \"fable made upon the\nsun adored under the name of Christ,\" \"_un dieu qui ait mange autrefois\nsur la terre, et qu'on y mange aujourd'hui_\" and unquestionably urges\nstrange points of coincidence. It is only astrologically that the 25th\nof December can be fixed, he argues, as the birthday of Mithra and of\nJesus, then born of the celestial Virgin. Our Easter festivities for the\nresurrection of Jesus are but another form of the more ancient rejoicing\nat that season for Adonis, the sun-God, restored to the world after his\ndescent into the lower regions. He recalls that the ancient Druidic\nworship recognised the Virgin suckling the child, and gathers together\nmany illustrations favorable to his theory. Here we do no more than\npoint out that while reason was rapidly releasing itself from priestly\nthraldom, heretics were not content to deny the divine origin of\nChristianity, but sought to trace its mundane or celestial source, and\nstrip it of its fabulous plumage.\n\nConstantine Francis Chasseboeuf Count Volney, born at Craon in Anjou,\nFebruary 3rd, 1757, died 1820. He was a Deist. In his two great works,\n\"The Ruins of Empires,\" and \"New Researches on Ancient History,\" he\nadvances many of the views brought forward by Dupuis, from whom he\nquotes, but his volumes are much more readable than those of the author\nof the \"Origin of all Religions.\" Volney appears to have been one of the\nfirst to popularise many of Spinoza's Biblical criticisms. He denied the\nMosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. He wrote most vigorously against\nkingcraft as well as priestcraft, regarding all systems of monarchy and\nreligion as founded on the ignorance and servility, the superstition and\nweakness of the people. He puts the following into the mouth of\nMahommedan priests replying to Christian preachers: \"We maintain that\nyour gospel morality is by no means characterised by the perfection you\nascribe to it. It is not true that it has introduced into the world new\nand unknown virtues; for example, the equality of mankind in the eyes of\nGod, and the fraternity and benevolence which are the consequence of\nthis equality, were tenets formerly professed by the sect of Hermetics\nand Samaneans, from whom you have your descent. As to forgiveness of\ninjuries, it had been taught by the Pagans themselves; but in the\nlatitude you give to it, it ceases to be a virtue, and becomes an\nimmorality and a crime. Your boasted precept, to him that strikes thee\non thy right cheek turn the other also, is not only contrary to the\nfeelings of man, but a flagrant violation of every principle of justice;\nit emboldens the wicked by impunity, degrades the virtuous by the\nservility to which it subjects them; delivers up the world to disorder\nand tyranny, and dissolves the bands of society--such is the true spirit\nof your doctrine. The precepts and parables of your Gospel also never\nrepresent God other than as a despot, acting by no rule of equity; than\nas a partial father treating a debauched and prodigal son with greater\nfavor than his obedient and virtuous children; than as a capricious\nmaster giving the same wages to him who has wrought but one hour, as to\nthose who have borne the burden and heat of the day, and preferring the\nlast comers to the first. In short, your morality throughout is\nunfriendly to human intercourse; a code of misanthropy calculated to\ngive men a disgust for life and society, and attach them to solitude and\ncelibacy. With respect to the manner in which you have practised your\nboasted doctrine, we in our turn appeal to the testimony of fact, and\nask, was it your evangelical meekness and forbearance which excited\nthose endless wars among your sectaries, those atrocious persecutions of\nwhat you call heretics, those crusades against the Arians, the\nManichaeans, and the Protestants, not to mention those which you have\ncommitted against us, nor the sacrilegious associations still subsisting\namong you, formed of men who have sworn to perpetuate them?[1] Was it\nthe charity of your Gospel that led you to exterminate whole nations in\nAmerica, and to destroy the empires of Mexico and Peru; that makes you\nstill desolate Africa, the inhabitants of which you sell like cattle,\nnotwithstanding the abolition of slavery that you pretend your religion\nhas effected; that makes you ravage India whose domain you usurp; in\nshort, is it charity that has prompted you for three centuries past to\ndisturb the peaceful inhabitants of three continents, the most prudent\nof whom, those of Japan and China, have been constrained to banish you\nfrom their country, that they might escape your chains and recover their\ndomestic tranquillity?\"\n\n  [1] The oath taken by the Knights of the Order of Malta is to kill, or\n      make the Mahometans prisoners, for the glory of God.\n\nDuring the early part of the eighteenth century, magazines and other\nperiodicals began to grow apace, and pamphlets multiplied exceedingly in\nthis country. Addison, Steele, Defoe, and Dean Swift all helped in the\nwork of popular education, and often in a manner probably unanticipated\nby themselves. Dean Swift's satire against scepticism was fiercely\npowerful; but his onslaughts against Roman Catholics and Presbyterians\nmade far more sceptics than his other writings had made churchmen.\n\nDuring the latter portion of the eighteenth century, a new phase of\npopular progress was exhibited in the comparatively lively interest\ntaken in political questions by the great body of the people inhabiting\nlarge towns. In America, France, and England, this was strongly marked;\nit is, however, in this country that we find special evidences of the\nconnexion between heresy and progress, as contradistinguished from\northodoxy and obstructiveness, manifested in the struggle for the\nliberty of the press and platform; a struggle in which some of the\nboldest efforts were made by poor and heretical self-taught men. The\ndying eighteenth century witnessed, in England, repeated instances of\nState prosecutions, in which the charge of entertaining or advocating\nthe views of the Republican heretic, Paine, formed a prominent feature,\nand there is little doubt that the efforts of the London Corresponding\nSociety (which the Government of the day made strenuous endeavors to\nrepress) to give circulation to some of Paine's political opinions in\nYorkshire, Lancashire, and the North, had for result the familiarising\nmany men with views they would have otherwise feared to investigate. The\nstep from the \"Rights of Man\" to the \"Age of Reason\" was but a short\nstride for an advancing inquirer. In France the end of the eighteenth\ncentury was marked by a frightful convulsion, but in the case of France,\nthe revolution was too sudden to be immediately beneficial or enduring,\nthe people were as a mass too poor, and therefore too ignorant, to wield\nthe power so rapidly wrested from the class who had so long monopolised\nit. It is far better to grow out of a creed by the sure and gradual\nconsciousness of the truths of existence, than to dash off a religious\ngarb simply from abhorrence of the shameful practices of its professors,\nor sudden conviction of the falsity of many of the testimonies in its\nfavor. So it is a more permanent and more complete revolution which is\neffectuated by educating men to a sense of the majesty and worth of true\nmanhood, than is any mere sudden overturning a rotten or cruel\nusurpation. Monarchies are most thoroughly and entirely destroyed--not\nby pulling down the throne, or by decapitating the king, but by\neducating and building up with a knowledge of political duty, each\nindividual citizen amongst the people.\n\nIt is here that heresy has its great advantage. Christianity says: \"The\npowers that be are ordained of God, he that resisteth the power\nresisteth the ordinance of God.\" Heresy challenges the divine right of\nthe governor, and declares that government should be the best\ncontrivance of national wisdom to promote the national weal, to provide\nagainst national want, and alleviate national suffering--that government\nwhich is only a costly machinery for conserving class privileges, and\npreventing popular freedom, is a tyrannical usurpation of power, which\nit is the duty of true men to destroy.\n\nI have briefly and imperfectly alluded to a few of the men who stand out\nas the sign-posts of heretical progress during the sixteenth,\nseventeenth, and eighteenth centuries; in some future publication of\nwider scope fairer tribute may be paid to the memories of some of these\nmighty warriors in the Freethought army. My object is to show that the\ncivilisation of the masses is in proportion to the spread of heresy\namongst them, that its effect is seen in an exhibition of manly dignity\nand self-reliant effort which is utterly unattainable amongst a\nsuperstitious people. Look at the lazzaroni of the Neapolitan States, or\nthe peasant of the Campagna, and you have at once the fearful\nillustration of demoralisation by faith in the beggar, brigand, and\nbeliever.\n\nIt is sometimes pretended that such advantages of education and position\nas the people may boast in England, their civil rights and social\nadvancement, are owing to their Christianity, but in point of fact the\nreverse is the case. For centuries Christianity had done little but\nfetter tightly the masses to Church and Crown, to Priest and Baron; the\nenfranchisement is comparatively modern. Even in this very day, in the\ndistricts where the people are entirely in the hands of the clergy of\nthe Established Church, there they are as a mass the most depraved. Take\nthe agricultural counties and the agricultural laborers: there are no\nheretical books or papers to be seen in their cottages, no heretical\nspeakers come amongst them to disturb their contentment; the\ndeputy-lieutenant, the squire, and the rector wield supreme\nauthority--the parish church has no rival. But what are the people as a\nmass? They are not men, they are not women; they lack men's and women's\nthoughts and aspirations; they are diggers and weeders, hedgers and\nditchers, ploughmen and carters; they are taught to be content with the\nstate of life in which it has pleased God to place them.\n\nMy plea is, that modern heresy, from Spinoza to Mill, has given\nbrain-strength and dignity to every one it has permeated--that the\npopular propagandists of this heresy, from Bruno to Carlile, have been\nthe true redeemers and saviors, the true educators of the people. The\nredemption is yet only at its commencement, the education only lately\nbegun, but the change is traceable already; as witness the power to\nspeak and write, and the ability to listen and read, which have grown\namongst the masses during the last hundred years. And if to-day we write\nwith higher hope, it is because the right to speak and the right to\nprint has been partly freed from the fetters forged through long\ngenerations of intellectual prostration, and almost entirely freed from\nthe statutory limitations which, under pretence of checking blasphemy\nand sedition, have really gagged honest speech against Pope and Emperor,\nagainst Church and Throne.\n\n\n\n\nHUMANITY'S GAIN FROM UNBELIEF\n\n\nAS an unbeliever, I ask leave to plead that humanity has been real\ngainer from scepticism, and that the gradual and growing rejection of\nChristianity--like the rejection of the faiths which preceded it--has in\nfact added, and will add, to man's happiness and well being. I maintain\nthat in physics science is the outcome of scepticism, and that general\nprogress is impossible without scepticism on matters of religion. I mean\nby religion every form of belief which accepts or asserts the\nsupernatural. I write as a Monist, and use the word \"nature\" as meaning\nall phenomena, every phenomenon, all that is necessary for the happening\nof any and every phenomenon. Every religion is constantly changing, and\nat any given time is the measure of the civilisation attained by what\nGuizot described as the _juste milieu_ of those who profess it. Each\nreligion is slowly but certainly modified in its dogma and practice by\nthe gradual development of the peoples amongst whom it is professed.\nEach discovery destroys in whole or part some theretofore cherished\nbelief. No religion is suddenly rejected by any people; it is rather\ngradually out-grown. None see a religion die; dead religions are like\ndead languages and obsolete customs; the decay is long and--like the\nglacier march--is only perceptible to the careful watcher by comparisons\nextending over long periods. A superseded religion may often be traced\nin the festivals, ceremonies, and dogmas of the religion which has\nreplaced it. Traces of obsolete religions may often be found in popular\ncustoms, in old wives' stories, and in children's tales.\n\nIt is necessary, in order that my plea should be understood, that I\nshould explain what I mean by Christianity; and in the very attempt at\nthis explanation there will, I think, be found strong illustration of\nthe value of unbelief. Christianity in practice may be gathered from its\nmore ancient forms, represented by the Roman Catholic and the Greek\nChurches, or from the various churches which have grown up in the last\nfew centuries. Each of these churches calls itself Christian. Some of\nthem deny the right of the others to use the word Christian. Some\nChristian churches treat, or have treated, other Christian churches as\nheretics or unbelievers. The Roman Catholics and the Protestants in\nGreat Britain and Ireland have in turn been terribly cruel one to the\nother; and the ferocious laws of the seventeenth and eighteenth\ncenturies, enacted by the English Protestants against English and Irish\nPapists, are a disgrace to civilisation. These penal laws, enduring\nlongest in Ireland, still bear fruit in much of the political mischief\nand agrarian crime of to-day. It is only the tolerant indifference of\nscepticism that, one after the other, has repealed most of the laws\ndirected by the Established Christian Church against Papists and\nDissenters, and also against Jews and heretics. Church of England\nclergymen have in the past gone to great lengths in denouncing\nnonconformity; and even in the present day an effective sample of such\ndenunciatory bigotry may be found in a sort of orthodox catechism\nwritten by the Rev. F.A. Gace, of Great Barling, Essex, the popularity\nof which is vouched by the fact that it has gone through ten editions.\nThis catechism for little children teaches that \"Dissent is a great\nsin,\" and that Dissenters \"worship God according to their own evil and\ncorrupt imaginations, and not according to his revealed will, and\ntherefore their worship is idolatrous.\" Church of England Christians and\nDissenting Christians, when fraternising amongst themselves, often\npublicly draw the line at Unitarians, and positively deny that these\nhave any sort of right to call themselves Christians.\n\nIn the first half of the seventeenth century Quakers were flogged and\nimprisoned in England as blasphemers; and the early Christian settlers\nin New England, escaping from the persecution of Old World Christians,\nshowed scant mercy to the followers of Fox and Penn. It is customary, in\ncontroversy, for those advocating the claims of Christianity, to include\nall good done by men in nominally Christian countries as if such good\nwere the result of Christianity, while they contend that the evil which\nexists prevails in spite of Christianity. I shall try to make out that\nthe ameliorating march of the last few centuries has been initiated by\nthe heretics of each age, though I quite concede that the men and women\ndenounced and persecuted as infidels by the pious of one century, are\nfrequently claimed as saints by the pious of a later generation.\n\nWhat then is Christianity? As a system or scheme of doctrine,\nChristianity may, I submit, not unfairly be gathered from the Old and\nNew Testaments. It is true that some Christians to-day desire to escape\nfrom submission to portions, at any rate, of the Old Testament; but this\nvery tendency seems to me to be part of the result of the beneficial\nheresy for which I am pleading. Man's humanity has revolted against Old\nTestament barbarism; and therefore he has attempted to disassociate the\nOld Testament from Christianity. Unless Old and New Testaments are\naccepted as God's revelation to man, Christianity has no higher claim\nthan any other of the world's many religions, if no such claim can be\nmade out for it apart from the Bible. And though it is quite true that\nsome who deem themselves Christians put the Old Testament completely in\nthe background, this is, I allege, because they are out-growing their\nChristianity. Without the doctrine of the atoning sacrifice of Jesus,\nChristianity, as a religion, is naught; but unless the story of Adam's\nfall is accepted, the redemption from the consequences of that fall\ncannot be believed. Both in Great Britain and in the United States the\nOld and New Testaments are forced on the people as part of Christianity;\nfor it is blasphemy at common law to deny the scriptures of the Old and\nNew Testaments to be of divine authority; and such denial is punishable\nwith fine and imprisonment, or even worse. The rejection of Christianity\nintended throughout this paper, is therefore the rejection of the Old\nand New Testaments as being of divine revelation. It is the rejection\nalike of the authorised teachings of the Church of Rome and of the\nChurch of England, as these may be found in the Bible, the creeds, the\nencyclicals, the prayer book, the canons and homilies of either or both\nof these churches. It is the rejection of the Christianity of Luther, of\nCalvin, and of Wesley.\n\nA ground frequently taken by Christian theologians is that the progress\nand civilisation of the world are due to Christianity; and the\ndiscussion is complicated by the fact that many eminent servants of\nhumanity have been nominal Christians, of one or other of the sects. My\nallegation will be that the special services rendered to human progress\nby these exceptional men, have not been in consequence of their adhesion\nto Christianity, but in spite of it; and that the specific points of\nadvantage to human kind have been in ratio of their direct opposition to\nprecise Biblical enactments.\n\nA.S. Farrar says[2] that Christianity \"asserts authority over religious\nbelief in virtue of being a supernatural communication from God, and\nclaims the right to control human thought in virtue of possessing sacred\nbooks, which are at once the record and the instrument of the\ncommunication, written by men endowed with supernatural inspiration.\"\nUnbelievers refuse to submit to the asserted authority, and deny this\nclaim of control over human thought: they allege that every effort at\nfreethinking must provoke sturdier thought.\n\n  [2] Farrar's \"Critical History of Freethought\".\n\nTake one clear gain to humanity consequent on unbelief, i.e., in the\nabolition of slavery in some countries, in the abolition of the slave\ntrade in most civilised countries, and in the tendency to its total\nabolition. I am unaware of any religion in the world which in the past\nforbade slavery. The professors of Christianity for ages supported it;\nthe Old Testament repeatedly sanctioned it by special laws; the New\nTestament has no repealing declaration. Though we are at the close of\nthe nineteenth century of the Christian era, it is only during the past\nthree-quarters of a century that the battle for freedom has been\ngradually won. It is scarcely a quarter of a century since the famous\nemancipation amendment was carried to the United States Constitution.\nAnd it is impossible for any well-informed Christian to deny that the\nabolition movement in North America was most steadily and bitterly\nopposed by the religious bodies in the various States. Henry Wilson, in\nhis \"Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America;\" Samuel J. May, in his\n\"Recollections of the Anti-Slavery Conflict;\" and J. Greenleaf Whittier,\nin his poems, alike are witnesses that the Bible and pulpit, the Church\nand its great influence, were used against abolition and in favor of the\nslave-owner. I know that Christians in the present day often declare\nthat Christianity had a large share in bringing about the abolition of\nslavery, and this because men professing Christianity were\nabolitionists. I plead that these so-called Christian abolitionists were\nmen and women whose humanity, recognising freedom for all, was in this\nin direct conflict with Christianity. It is not yet fifty years since\nthe European Christian powers jointly agreed to abolish the slave trade.\nWhat of the effect of Christianity on these powers in the centuries\nwhich had preceded? The heretic Condorcet pleaded powerfully for freedom\nwhilst Christian France was still slave-holding. For many centuries\nChristian Spain and Christian Portugal held slaves. Porto Rico freedom\nis not of long date; and Cuban emancipation is even yet newer. It was a\nChristian King, Charles 5th, and a Christian friar, who founded in\nSpanish America the slave trade between the Old World and the New. For\nsome 1800 years, almost, Christians kept slaves, bought slaves, sold\nslaves, bred slaves, stole slaves. Pious Bristol and godly Liverpool\nless than 100 years ago openly grew rich on the traffic. During the\nninth century Greek Christians sold slaves to the Saracens. In the\neleventh century prostitutes were publicly sold as slaves in Rome, and\nthe profit went to the Church.\n\nIt is said that William Wilberforce, the abolitionist, was a Christian.\nBut at any rate his Christianity was strongly diluted with unbelief. As\nan abolitionist he did not believe Leviticus xxv, 44-6; he must have\nrejected Exodus xxi, 2-6; he could not have accepted the many\npermissions and injunctions by the Bible deity to his chosen people to\ncapture and hold slaves. In the House of Commons on 18th February, 1796,\nWilberforce reminded that Christian assembly that infidel and anarchic\nFrance had given liberty to the Africans, whilst Christian and monarchic\nEngland was \"obstinately continuing a system of cruelty and injustice.\"\n\nWilberforce, whilst advocating the abolition of slavery, found the whole\ninfluence of the English Court, and the great weight of the Episcopal\nBench, against him. George III, a most Christian king, regarded\nabolition theories with abhorrence, and the Christian House of Lords was\nutterly opposed to granting freedom to the slave. When Christian\nmissionaries some sixty-two years ago preached to Demerara negroes under\nthe rule of Christian England, they were treated by Christian judges,\nholding commission from Christian England, as criminals for so\npreaching. A Christian commissioned officer, member of the Established\nChurch of England, signed the auction notices for the sale of slaves as\nlate as the year 1824. In the evidence before a Christian court-martial,\na missionary is charged with having tended to make the negroes\ndissatisfied with their condition as slaves, and with having promoted\ndiscontent and dissatisfaction amongst the slaves against their lawful\nmasters. For this the Christian judges sentenced the Demerara\nabolitionist missionary to be hanged by the neck till he was dead. The\njudges belonged to the Established Church; the missionary was a\nMethodist. In this the Church of England Christians in Demerara were no\nworse than Christians of other sects: their Roman Catholic Christian\nbrethren in St. Domingo fiercely attacked the Jesuits as criminals\nbecause they treated negroes as though they were men and women, in\nencouraging \"two slaves to separate their interest and safety from that\nof the gang,\" whilst orthodox Christians let them couple promiscuously\nand breed for the benefit of their owners like any other of their\nplantation cattle. In 1823 the _Royal Gazette_ (Christian) of Demerara\nsaid:\n\n\"We shall not suffer you to enlighten our slaves, who are by law our\nproperty, till you can demonstrate that when they are made religious and\nknowing they will continue to be our slaves.\"\n\nWhen William Lloyd Garrison, the pure-minded and most earnest\nabolitionist, delivered his first anti-slavery address in Boston,\nMassachusetts, the only building he could obtain, in which to speak, was\nthe infidel hall owned by Abner Kneeland, the \"infidel\" editor of the\n_Boston Investigator_, who had been sent to gaol for blasphemy. Every\nChristian sect had in turn refused Mr. Lloyd Garrison the use of the\nbuildings they severally controlled. Lloyd Garrison told me himself how\nhonored deacons of a Christian Church joined in an actual attempt to\nhang him.\n\nWhen abolition was advocated in the United States in 1790, the\nrepresentative from South Carolina was able to plead that the Southern\nclergy \"did not condemn either slavery or the slave trade;\" and Mr.\nJackson, the representative from Georgia, pleaded that \"from Genesis to\nRevelation\" the current was favorable to slavery. Elias Hicks, the brave\nAbolitionist Quaker, was denounced as an Atheist, and less than twenty\nyears ago a Hicksite Quaker was expelled from one of the Southern\nAmerican Legislatures, because of the reputed irreligion of these\nabolitionist \"Friends.\"\n\nWhen the Fugitive Slave Law was under discussion in North America, large\nnumbers of clergymen of nearly every denomination were found ready to\ndefend this infamous law. Samuel James May, the famous abolitionist, was\ndriven from the pulpit as irreligious, solely because of his attacks on\nslaveholding.[3] Northern clergymen tried to induce \"silver tongued\"\nWendell Philips to abandon his advocacy of abolition. Southern pulpits\nrang with praises for the murderous attack on Charles Sumner. The\nslayers of Elijah Lovejoy were highly reputed Christian men.\n\n  [3] \"Capital and Wages,\" p. 19.\n\nGuizot, notwithstanding that he tries to claim that the Church exerted\nits influence to restrain slavery, says (\"European Civilisation,\" vol.\ni, p. 110):\n\n\"It has often been repeated that the abolition of slavery among modern\npeople is entirely due to Christians. That, I think, is saying too much.\nSlavery existed for a long period in the heart of Christian society,\nwithout its being particularly astonished or irritated. A multitude of\ncauses, and a great development in other ideas and principles of\ncivilisation, were necessary for the abolition of this iniquity of all\niniquities.\"\n\nAnd my contention is that this \"development in other ideas and\nprinciples of civilisation\" was long retarded by Governments in which\nthe Christian Church was dominant. The men who advocated liberty were\nimprisoned, racked, and burned, so long as the Church was strong enough\nto be merciless.\n\nThe Rev. Francis Minton, Rector of Middlewich, in his recent earnest\nvolume on the struggles of labor, admits that \"a few centuries ago\nslavery was acknowledged throughout Christendom to have the divine\nsanction.... Neither the exact cause, nor the precise time of the\ndecline of the belief in the righteousness of slavery can be defined. It\nwas doubtless due to a combination of causes, one probably being as\nindirect as the recognition of the greater economy of free labor. With\nthe decline of the belief the abolition of slavery took place.\"\n\nThe institution of slavery was actually existent in Christian Scotland\nin the 17th century, where the white coal workers and salt workers of\nEast Lothian were chattels, as were their negro brethren in the Southern\nStates thirty years since; they \"went to those who succeeded to the\nproperty of the works, and they could be sold, bartered, or pawned.\"[4]\n\"There is,\" says J.M. Robertson, \"no trace that the Protestant clergy of\nScotland ever raised a voice against the slavery which grew up before\ntheir eyes. And it was not until 1799, after republican and irreligious\nFrance had set the example, that it was legally abolished.\"\n\n  [4] \"Perversion of Scotland,\" p. 197.\n\nTake further the gain to humanity consequent on the unbelief, or rather\ndisbelief, in witchcraft and wizardry. Apart from the brutality by\nChristians towards those suspected of witchcraft, the hindrance to\nscientific initiative or experiment was incalculably great so long as\nbelief in magic obtained. The inventions of the past two centuries, and\nespecially those of the 18th century, might have benefitted mankind much\nearlier and much more largely, but for the foolish belief in witchcraft\nand the shocking ferocity exhibited against those suspected of\nnecromancy. After quoting a large number of cases of trial and\npunishment for witchcraft from official records in Scotland, J.M.\nRobertson says: \"The people seem to have passed from cruelty to cruelty\nprecisely as they became more and more fanatical, more and more devoted\nto their Church, till after many generations the slow spread of human\nscience began to counteract the ravages of superstition, the clergy\nresisting reason and humanity to the last.\"\n\nThe Rev. Mr. Minton[5] concedes that it is \"the advance of knowledge\nwhich has rendered the idea of Satanic agency through the medium of\nwitchcraft grotesquely ridiculous.\" He admits that \"for more than 1500\nyears the belief in witchcraft was universal in Christendom,\" and that\n\"the public mind was saturated with the idea of Satanic agency in the\neconomy of nature.\" He adds: \"If we ask why the world now rejects what\nwas once so unquestioningly believed, we can only reply that advancing\nknowledge has gradually undermined the belief.\"\n\n  [5] \"Capital and Wages,\" pp. 15, 16.\n\nIn a letter recently sent to the _Pall Mall Gazette_ against modern\nSpiritualism, Professor Huxley declares, \"that the older form of the\nsame fundamental delusion--the belief in possession and in\nwitchcraft--gave rise in the fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth\ncenturies to persecutions by Christians of innocent men, women, and\nchildren, more extensive, more cruel, and more murderous than any to\nwhich the Christians of the first three centuries were subjected by the\nauthorities of pagan Rome.\"\n\nAnd Professor Huxley adds: \"No one deserves much blame for being\ndeceived in these matters. We are all intellectually handicapped in\nyouth by the incessant repetition of the stories about possession and\nwitchcraft in both the Old and the New Testaments. The majority of us\nare taught nothing which will help us to observe accurately and to\ninterpret observations with due caution.\"\n\nThe English Statute Book under Elizabeth and under James was disfigured\nby enactments against witchcraft passed under pressure from the\nChristian churches, which Acts have only been repealed in consequence of\nthe disbelief in the Christian precept, \"thou shalt not suffer a witch\nto live.\" The statute 1 James I, c. 12, condemned to death \"all persons\ninvoking any evil spirits, or consulting, covenanting with,\nentertaining, employing, feeding, or rewarding any evil spirit\" or\ngenerally practising any \"infernal arts.\" This was not repealed until\nthe eighteenth century was far advanced. Edison's phonograph would 280\nyears ago have insured martyrdom for its inventor; the utilisation of\nelectric force to transmit messages around the world would have been\nclearly the practice of an infernal art. At least we may plead that\nunbelief has healed the bleeding feet of science, and made the road free\nfor her upward march.\n\nIs it not also fair to urge the gain to humanity which has been apparent\nin the wiser treatment of the insane, consequent on the unbelief in the\nChristian doctrine that these unfortunates were examples either of\ndemoniacal possession or of special visitation of deity? For centuries\nunder Christianity mental disease was most ignorantly treated. Exorcism,\nshackles, and the whip were the penalties rather than the curatives for\nmental maladies. From the heretical departure of Pinel at the close of\nthe last century to the position of Maudsley to-day, every step\nillustrates the march of unbelief. Take the gain to humanity in the\nunbelief not yet complete, but now largely preponderant, in the dogma\nthat sickness, pestilence, and famine were manifestations of divine\nanger, the results of which could neither be avoided nor prevented. The\nChristian Churches have done little or nothing to dispel this\nsuperstition. The official and authorised prayers of the principal\ndenominations, even to-day, reaffirm it. Modern study of the laws of\nhealth, experiments in sanitary improvements, more careful applications\nof medical knowledge, have proved more efficacious in preventing or\ndiminishing plagues and pestilence than have the intervention of the\npriest or the practice of prayer. Those in England who hold the old\nfaith that prayer will suffice to cure disease are to-day termed\n\"peculiar people\" and are occasionally indicted for manslaughter when\ntheir sick children die, because the parents have trusted to God instead\nof appealing to the resources of science.\n\nIt is certainly a clear gain to astronomical science that the Church\nwhich tried to compel Galileo to unsay the truth has been overborne by\nthe growing unbelief of the age, even though our little children are yet\ntaught that Joshua made the sun and moon stand still, and that for\nHezekiah the sun-dial reversed its record. As Buckle, arguing for the\nmorality of scepticism, says:[6]\n\n  [6] \"History of Civilisation,\" vol. i, p. 345.\n\n\"As long as men refer the movements of the comets to the immediate\nfinger of God, and as long as they believe that an eclipse is one of the\nmodes by which the deity expresses his anger, they will never be guilty\nof the blasphemous presumption of attempting to predict such\nsupernatural appearances. Before they could dare to investigate the\ncauses of these mysterious phenomena, it is necessary that they should\nbelieve, or at all events that they should suspect, that the phenomena\nthemselves were capable of being explained by the human mind.\"\n\nAs in astronomy so in geology, the gain of knowledge to humanity has\nbeen almost solely in measure of the rejection of the Christian theory.\nA century since it was almost universally held that the world was\ncreated 6,000 years ago, or at any rate, that by the sin of the first\nman, Adam, death commenced about that period. Ethnology and Anthropology\nhave only been possible in so far as, adopting the regretful words of\nSir W. Jones, \"intelligent and virtuous persons are inclined to doubt\nthe authenticity of the accounts delivered by Moses concerning the\nprimitive world.\"\n\nSurely it is clear gain to humanity that unbelief has sprung up against\nthe divine right of kings, that men no longer believe that the monarch\nis \"God's anointed\" or that \"the powers that be are ordained of God.\" In\nthe struggles for political freedom the weight of the Church was mostly\nthrown on the side of the tyrant. The homilies of the Church of England\ndeclare that \"even the wicked rulers have their power and authority from\nGod,\" and that \"such subjects as are disobedient or rebellious against\ntheir princes disobey God and procure their own damnation.\" It can\nscarcely be necessary to argue to the citizens of the United States of\nAmerica that the origin of their liberties was in the rejection of faith\nin the divine right of George III.\n\nWill any one, save the most bigoted, contend that it is not certain gain\nto humanity to spread unbelief in the terrible doctrine that eternal\ntorment is the probable fate of the great majority of the human family?\nIs it not gain to have diminished the faith that it was the duty of the\nwretched and the miserable to be content with the lot in life which\nprovidence had awarded them?\n\nIf it stood alone it would be almost sufficient to plead as\njustification for heresy the approach towards equality and liberty for\nthe utterance of all opinions achieved because of growing unbelief. At\none period in Christendom each Government acted as though only one\nreligious faith could be true, and as though the holding, or at any rate\nthe making known, any other opinion was a criminal act deserving\npunishment. Under the one word \"infidel,\" even as late as Lord Coke,\nwere classed together all who were not Christians, even though they were\nMahommedans, Brahmins, or Jews. All who did not accept the Christian\nfaith were sweepingly denounced as infidels and therefore _hors de la\nloi_. One hundred and forty-five years since, the Attorney-General,\npleading in our highest court, said:[7] \"What is the definition of an\ninfidel? Why, one who does not believe in the Christian religion. Then a\nJew is an infidel.\" And English history for several centuries prior to\nthe Commonwealth shows how habitually and most atrociously Christian\nkings, Christian courts, and Christian churches, persecuted and harassed\nthese infidel Jews. There was a time in England when Jews were such\ninfidels that they were not even allowed to be sworn as witnesses. In\n1740 a legacy left for establishing an assembly for the reading of the\nJewish scriptures was held to be void[8] because it was \"for the\npropagation of the Jewish law in contradiction to the Christian\nreligion.\" It is only in very modern times that municipal rights have\nbeen accorded in England to Jews. It is barely thirty years since they\nhave been allowed to sit in Parliament. In 1851, the late Mr. Newdegate\nin debate[9] objected \"that they should have sitting in that House an\nindividual who regarded our Redeemer as an impostor.\" Lord Chief Justice\nRaymond has shown[10] how it was that Christian intolerance was\ngradually broken down. \"A Jew may sue at this day, but heretofore he\ncould not; for then they were looked upon as enemies, but now commerce\nhas taught the world more humanity.\"\n\n  [7] Omychund v. Barker, 1 Atkyns 29.\n\n  [8] D'Costa v. D'Pays, Amb. 228.\n\n  [9] 3 Hansard cxvi, 381.\n\n [10] Lord Raymond's reports 282, Wells v. Williams.\n\nLord Coke treated the infidel as one who in law had no right of any\nkind, with whom no contract need be kept, to whom no debt was payable.\nThe plea of alien infidel as answer to a claim was actually pleaded in\ncourt as late as 1737.[11] In a solemn judgment, Lord Coke says:[12]\n\n [11] Ramkissenseat v Barker, 1 Atkyns 51.\n\n [12] Coke's reports, Calvin's case.\n\n\"All infidels are in law _perpetui inimici_; for between them, as with\nthe devils whose subjects they be, and the Christian, there is perpetual\nhostility.\" Twenty years ago the law of England required the writer of\nany periodical publication or pamphlet under sixpence in price to give\nsureties for L800 against the publication of blasphemy. I was the last\nperson prosecuted in 1868 for non-compliance with that law, which was\nrepealed by Mr. Gladstone in 1869. Up till the 23rd December, 1888, an\ninfidel in Scotland was only allowed to enforce any legal claim in court\non condition that, if challenged, he denied his infidelity. If he lied\nand said he was a Christian, he was accepted, despite his lying. If he\ntold the truth and said he was an unbeliever, then he was practically an\noutlaw, incompetent to give evidence for himself or for any other.\nFortunately all this was changed by the Royal assent to the Oaths Act on\n24th December. Has not humanity clearly gained a little in this struggle\nthrough unbelief?\n\nFor more than a century and a half the Roman Catholic had in practice\nharsher measure dealt out to him by the English Protestant Christian,\nthan was even during that period the fate of the Jew or the unbeliever.\nIf the Roman Catholic would not take the oath of abnegation, which to a\nsincere Romanist was impossible, he was in effect an outlaw, and the\n\"jury packing\" so much complained of to-day in Ireland is one of the\nhabit survivals of the old bad time when Roman Catholics were thus by\nlaw excluded from the jury box.\n\n_The Scotsman_ of January 5th, 1889, notes that in 1860 the Rev. Dr.\nRobert Lee, of Greyfriars, gave a course of Sunday evening lectures on\nBiblical Criticism, in which he showed the absurdity and untenableness\nof regarding every word in the Bible as inspired; and it adds:\n\n\"We well remember the awful indignation such opinions inspired, and it\nis refreshing to contrast them with the calmness with which they are now\nreceived. Not only from the pulpits of the city, but from the press\n(misnamed religious) were his doctrines denounced. And one eminent U.P.\nminister went the length of publicly praying for him, and for the\nstudents under his care. It speaks volumes for the progress made since\nthen, when we think in all probability Dr. Charteris, Dr. Lee's\nsuccessor in the chair, differs in his teaching from the Confession of\nFaith much more widely than Dr. Lee ever did, and yet he is considered\nsupremely orthodox, whereas the stigma of heresy was attached to the\nother all his life.\"\n\nAnd this change and gain to humanity is due to the gradual progress of\nunbelief, alike inside and outside the Churches. Take from differing\nChurches two recent illustrations: The late Principal Dr. Lindsay\nAlexander, a strict Calvinist, in his important work on \"Biblical\nTheology\" claims that \"all the statements of Scripture are alike to be\ndeferred to as presenting to us the mind of God.\"\n\nYet the Rev. Dr. of Divinity also says:\n\n\"We find in their writings [i.e., in the writings of the sacred authors]\nstatements which no ingenuity can reconcile with what modern research\nhas shown to be the scientific truth--i.e., we find in them statements\nwhich modern science proves to be erroneous.\"\n\nAt the last Southwell Diocesan Church of England Conference at Derby,\nthe Bishop of the Diocese presiding, the Rev. J.G. Richardson said of\nthe Old Testament that \"it was no longer honest or even safe to deny\nthat this noble literature, rich in all the elements of moral or\nspiritual grandeur, given--so the Church had always taught, and would\nalways teach--under the inspiration of Almighty God, was sometimes\nmistaken in its science, was sometimes inaccurate in its history, and\nsometimes only relative and accommodatory in its morality. It assumed\ntheories of the physical world which science had abandoned and could\nnever resume; it contained passages of narrative which devout and\ntemperate men pronounced discredited, both by external and internal\nevidence; it praised, or justified, or approved, or condoned, or\ntolerated, conduct which the teaching of Christ and the conscience of\nthe Christian alike condemned.\"\n\nOr, as I should urge, the gain to humanity by unbelief is that \"the\nteaching of Christ\" has been modified, enlarged, widened, and humanised,\nand that \"the conscience of the Christian\" is in quantity and quality\nmade fitter for human progress by the ever increasing additions of\nknowledge of these later and more heretical days.\n\n\n\n\nSUPERNATURAL AND RATIONAL MORALITY\n\n\nTHE essential of all religion is supernaturalism, and every religious\nsystem therefore involves at least dualism; as creator and created,\nruler and ruled. This definition would, of course, exclude Pantheism\nfrom consideration as a religion. Supernaturalism is for a rationalist a\nword of self-contradiction. Nature to him means all phenomena, and all\nthat is necessary to the happening of every phenomenon; that is, nature\nis the equivalent of everything. To the rationalist there can be nothing\nsupernatural. He is a Monist. There is, he affirms, one existence; he\nknows only its phenomena. These phenomena he distinguishes in thought by\ntheir varying characteristics. To the rationalist the word \"create\" in\nthe sense of absolute origin of substance is a word without meaning. He\ncannot think totality of existence increased or non-existent.\n\"Substance,\" \"existence,\" \"matter,\" is to him the totality: known, and,\nas far as he can yet think, knowable only in its phenomena.\n\nIt has been assumed so generally by religious advocates that some\ntheologic dogma is necessary to every system of morality that the\nassumption needs direct traverse. It is put to-day by many of those who\nare attacking secular education for the young that without religious\nteaching there is no morality possible. This inaccuracy of speech is the\nresult of centuries of supernaturalistic bias. Buckle considers\nCharron's \"Treatise on Wisdom\" as the first \"attempt made in a modern\nlanguage to construct a system of morals without the aid of theology.\"\nCharron says (Book II, chap. 5, sec. 4) that moral duties \"are purely\nthe result of a reasonable and thinking mind.\"\n\nIt will be contended here that every system of \"supernatural\" morality\nis necessarily uncertain, arbitrary, and confusing. That moral progress\nis only made in the ratio in which supernaturalism is diminished.\n\nTHE RATIONALIST VIEW\n\nTo the rationalist that act is moral which tends to the greatest\nhappiness of the greatest number of the human family with the least\ninjury to any. That is, the test of the morality of any act is its\nutility. The experience of all ages, collated and classified by the most\ncareful and accurate amongst investigators and profound thinkers, and\nchecked and verified by each day's new discoveries and newer\nspeculations, furnishes each individual with a sufficient but not\ninfallible moral guide. Morality is social; that is, all acts are moral\nwhich tend to promote, build up, and ensure the permanent well being of\nsociety. Tendencies to moral conduct are transmitted partly by the\ntraining of the young by those already with recognised habit of life,\nand partly by the influence of heredity. In England Jeremy Bentham and\nJohn Stuart Mill have been chiefly identified with the modern\naffirmation of this utilitarian theory, and R. Hildreth, the translator\nof Dumont's \"Bentham,\" says: \"Whatever may be thought of the principle\nof utility, when considered as the foundation of morals, no one\nnow-a-days will undertake to deny that it is the only safe rule of\nlegislation.\" Theologians object to the rationalist presentment of\nmorality: (a) That, according to the rationalist, morality varies, or,\n(b) that at any rate the conceptions of morality vary. That with\ndifferent persons, therefore, there may be different views of what is\nmoral, and there being no reliable, unchangeable, and definite standard,\nthe rationalist position is chaotic. (c) The theologian asks, who is to\njudge on each act, whether or not it is moral? and (d) the theologian\nalleges that the measure of rational morality is the equivalent of mere\nindividual selfishness, i.e. that the rationalist only seeks his own\nhappiness, that is, only seeks to gratify his own desires.\n\nThe rationalist answers (a) that the test of rational morality never\nvaries; that the ability to apply the test does vary with the higher\neducation of the masses. (b) That the standard, though not infallible,\nis sufficiently reliable for everyday life, and that rationalists seek\neach day to improve the efficiency of the standard by enforcing\ngenerally more accurate knowledge of life-conditions, thus developing a\nsound healthy public opinion. (c) Each individual must judge for herself\nor himself, and therefore should be well taught, or at least should have\nfair opportunity of being well taught, and should be encouraged to be\nwell taught. It follows from this that morality develops with education.\nImmorality and ignorance are inseparable. (d) That if it be selfish to\ndesire personal happiness, knowing that to permanently secure such\nhappiness it is necessary to always promote the happiness of the\nmajority, avoiding injury to any, then the rational moralist must be\ncontent to be called selfish. He suggests that if there is anything in\nthe objection, it equally, if not with greater force, applies to the\nChristian supernaturalist who desires to be eternally happy though he\nknows that \"few are chosen,\" and that \"many shall strive to enter in and\nshall not be able.\"\n\nTHE SUPERNATURAL VIEW\n\nThat act is moral which is in obedience to or in accord with the\ncommands of deity. That these commands are known (a) by direct\nrevelation from God; or (b) through the human conscience, which it is\nalleged is implanted by God in each individual, and which infallibly\ndecides for each person what acts are right and what are wrong.\n\n\"For those who believe in the God of Christian morality,\" says the Rev.\nJ. Llewellyn Davies, in the preface to his discourses on social\nquestions, \"the ultimate sources and rule of morality can be no other\nthan His will;\" and Mr. Davies contends that rationalists \"can find no\nscientific basis for duty, no adequate explanation of conscience.\"\n\nThe rationalist objects (a) that the commands of deity must be expressed\neither (1) to individuals or (2) to the whole race. In the first case\nthe rationalist asks, How is it to be determined when any individual is\nreliable who professes to be the recipient and interpreter of God's\ncommands? In the second case he asks, Is it conceivable that any such\ncommand should have been given to the whole human race without its most\ncomplete recognition on the part of the recipients? When an individual\nclaims to be the medium of transmission of divine communication, how is\nhis claim to be tested? How is it clear that the communication was made?\nthat the individual understood it? and that he has correctly interpreted\nit? If by the quality of the communication he makes, then by what\nstandard is the quality to be judged? The Mahdi claimed to be God-sent;\nJoseph Smith declared himself charged with a special revelation; so did\nMahomet; so did Jesus. How, in either case, is it to be determined\nwhether the prophet is sane and truthful? Is it to be decided by the\nnumbers who accepted or rejected the prophet? and if yes, at what date\nor within what limits does the numerical strength become material? There\nare more Mormons now than there were Christians within a like period.\nMahomedanism in some countries would poll an overwhelming majority.\nBuddhism counts to-day far more heads than can be claimed for\nChristianity. And what is called Christianity is subdivisible into many\nsects as hostile to each other, though Christian, as the Christian is to\nthe Mahomedan.\n\nThere is most certainly no one revelation to the whole race universally\nadmitted to be the revealed command of God. It is asserted by some that\nthe Bible is such a revelation, but the large majority of the world's\ninhabitants do not now accept it: the largest proportion of the human\nfamily have never accepted it. And even of the minority who nominally\naccept the Bible as God's revelation, there are many, calling themselves\nChristians, who declare that the Old Testament is now very imperfect as\na moral guide, and that it was only given to the Jews on account of the\nhardness of their hearts; whilst the Jews on the other hand entirely\nreject the New Testament. Christians are divided into Roman Catholics\nand Protestants. The latter say, or at any rate in majority say, that\nthe Bible is an infallible moral guide. Roman Catholics deny that the\nBible is a rule of faith except under the interpretation of the Church.\nProtestants are divided as to the value of various versions and\ntranslations, and as to the extent to which the Old Testament is to be\nregarded as superseded by the New. Even in the Church of England there\nis an authorised version and a revised improvement as yet unauthorised.\n\n(b) The rationalist further objects that what is described by the\nsupernaturalist as the human conscience is not a special faculty,\nunvarying and identical in all, but that it is in each individual a\nvariable result of heredity, organisation, education, and general\nlife-surroundings, enabling judgment by the individual on the\nconsequence of events; that it affords no reliable clue to what is\nmoral, for the general judgments of public conscience as embodied in\npublic opinion, or in statute law, have varied in the same country in\ndifferent ages to the extent sometimes of absolute and irreconcileable\ncontradiction. That the individual conscience, so-called, varies in the\nsame individual at different periods of his life and under different\nconditions of health. That at the present moment the judgments of\nconscience are on most material points in direct conflict in different\nparts of the world. Two hundred and fifty years ago it was moral in\nEngland to believe in witches, and it was a moral act to kill a witch.\nTo-day it is held immoral to believe in witchcraft; to kill a witch\nwould now be at law a criminal act. Witchcraft is so admittedly false\nthat palmistry, conjuring, and fortune-telling are treated as punishable\nfrauds. Yet from the supernatural point of view the reality of\nwitchcraft is unquestionable, and the praiseworthiness of witchkilling\nis indisputable (_vide_ Exodus xxii, 18; Leviticus xix, 26-31, xx, 27;\nDeut. xviii, 10, 11; 1 Sam. xxviii). And in some of the districts of\nEngland where school boards are yet without influence and where godless\neducation has been prevented, the pious ignorant folk still believe in\ncharms, wise women, and white and black magic.\n\nOne hundred years ago it was moral to trade in slaves, to own slaves,\nand to breed slaves. Even twenty-five years ago it was moral to own and\nbreed slaves in the United States of America. Pious Bristol\nslave-traders in the 18th century endowed churches from the profits of\ntheir commerce. To-day slave-holding is not only punishable by law, but\nthe theory of slavery is indignantly repudiated by all decent English\nfolk. And yet supernaturalism maintained and legalised slavery\n(Leviticus xxv, 44-46). Wilberforce, the English abolitionist, himself a\nprofessing Christian, noting that infidel France had set its negroes\nfree, asked in the House of Commons, on February 11th, 1796: \"What would\nsome future historian say in describing two great nations, the one\naccused of promoting anarchy and confusion and every human misery, yet\ngiving liberty to the African; the other country contending for\nreligion, morality, and justice, yet obstinately continuing a system of\ncruelty and injustice?\" In the American Congress, in 1790, the\nrepresentative of South Carolina affirmed that the clergy did not\ncondemn either slavery or the slave-trade, and Mr. Jackson, of Georgia,\nmaintained that religion was not against slavery. On the 4th September,\n1835, the Courier, Charleston, South Carolina, reports that at the\ncelebrated pro-slavery meeting held there, \"the clergy of all\ndenominations attended in a body, lending their sanction to the\nproceedings, and adding by their presence to the impressive character of\nthe scene.\" The rationalist asks, What was it that the consciences of\nthese Christian men said on the subject of slavery only fifty years ago?\nEven in Boston, Massachusetts, William Lloyd Garrison, the abolitionist,\nthough an earnest Christian, was shut out of Christian society; and the\nonly building in that city of many churches in which he was at first\nallowed to publicly plead for the abolition of slavery was a hall owned\nby Abner Kneeland, an infidel who had been convicted and sent to gaol as\na blasphemer. Why for centuries did Christians trade in slaves, if\nsupernatural morality is dependent on the immutable judgments of a\nGod-ordained conscience? Why, if slavery was defensible by supernatural\nmoralists only twenty-five years ago, has it now become utterly\nindefensible?\n\nIn England it is immoral to marry the sister of your deceased wife, and\nthe immorality is so clear and flagrant that any children born of such a\nmarriage are bastardized, and in the event of an intestacy are excluded\nfrom sharing the property of either of the parents. In Canada it is\nmoral to marry your deceased wife's sister, and the children are\nrespected as legitimate. A few years ago a great supernaturalist, a\nleader in the religious body to which he belonged, an eloquent preacher,\nan otherwise good man, desired to marry his deceased wife's sister. It\nbeing immoral in this country he went abroad to another country where\nthe act was moral, and there he married. The rationalist asks, How is\nthis explicable from the supernatural standpoint?\n\nIn any part of Great Britain or Ireland it is immoral to have more than\none wife, and the law will punish the parties to the union and put\ndisabilities on the issue. In India, under British law, it is moral to\nhave more than one wife, and the Christian law-courts sitting in London\nwill recognise the children of that union. Christian supernaturalists\nwill admit: That good men like Abraham had more than one wife; that\nspecially-rewarded men like David practised polygamy; but they say that\nthis is an old practice, which, though once good, is no longer to be\nfollowed.\n\nIn England it is clearly immoral for one man to prepare and use dynamite\nor other explosives so as to destroy the life and property of\nEnglishmen. But in England it is as clearly moral for men in the\nWoolwich government laboratory to prepare and use similar explosives to\nblow to pieces people in Egypt, the Soudan, or elsewhere. The morality\nis vouched by the fact that an archbishop issues a special prayer to be\noffered in all the churches for the success of the expedition carrying\nthe explosives.\n\nBelief is moral from the supernatural standpoint; unbelief immoral and\npunishable. The rationalist says that the varying beliefs of the world\nare the natural result of organisation of transmitted traditions and\npresent life-surroundings; that beliefs are not criminal even when they\nare erroneous, and that wrong beliefs should be met by refutation, not\nby punishment.\n\nThe rationalist affirms that there are only two logical standpoints;\none, that of submission of opinion to arbitrary authority. This, in\nChristianity, is the position of the church of Rome. The other, that of\nthe assertion of the right and duty of private judgment.\n\nThe Christian supernaturalist has, in England, considerably modified, in\nrecent times, his action on the immorality of unbelief. In the time of\nLord Coke a Turk was an infidel with whom no agreement was binding. From\nthe reign of William III, until late in the reign of George III,\nUnitarianism was a crime by act of Parliament.\n\nUntil late in the reign of George IV Roman Catholicism was a crime\npunishable by law. Until 1859 a Jew was considered sufficiently wicked\nto be deprived of many civil rights. Two hundred and thirty years ago\nQuakers were immoral men, and as such were publicly whipped.\n\nThe supernaturalist recommends right conduct that you may be rewarded\nwhen you are dead. The rationalist recommends right conduct because in\nincreasing the present total of human happiness you increase your own\nhappiness now, and render future happiness more easily attainable by\nothers.\n\nThese are only a few of many like-charactered illustrations which\nentitle the rationalist to return on the supernaturalist the weight of\nthe Rev. J. Llewellyn Davies' above-quoted contention.\n\n\n\n\nHAS MAN A SOUL?\n\n\nTHE first step in this inquiry is to define what is meant; by the word\n\"soul,\" and the initial difficulty is that it is much easier to agree\nwith theologians upon what is not meant than upon what is meant.\nSometimes orthodox talkers seem to confuse \"soul\" with \"life\" and\n\"mind,\" and they use \"soul\" or \"spirit\" as if expressing contrast with\n\"matter.\" To at least prevent, as much as possible, misapprehension of\nour own meaning, we shall try to define each word.\n\nLimiting here the use of the word \"life\" to the animal kingdom, it is\ndefined to mean the total organic functional activity of each animal.\nAccepting this definition, \"life\" will express a variable result not\nonly in each individual, but in the same individual in childhood, prime,\nor old age. Life is not an entity, it is the state of an organised body\nin which the organs perform their individual and collective functions.\nWhen all the organs do this efficiently, we call this state health; when\nsome of the organs fail, or do too much, we call this disease; when all\nthe organs permanently cease to perform their functions, we call this\ndeath. Life, then, is a state of the body; health and disease are phases\nof life; death is the termination of life. Life is the word by which we\ndescribe the result of a certain collocation; but this does not imply\nthat life can be predicated of any or all the components taken\nseparately. By the life of an animal is meant the existence of that\nanimal; when dead, the animal no longer exists; the substance of what\nwas the animal thenceforth exists in other modes, but the organism has\nceased. The life of each animal is as distinct from that of each other\nanimal as is the weight or size of each animal distinct from the weight\nand size of any other animal; and the life of the animal no more exists\nafter the animal has ceased than does the weight or the size of the\nanimal exist, after its body is destroyed. The word \"life\" used of an\noyster, a lobster, a sheep, a horse, or of a human being, expresses in\neach case a state distinguishable in significance. Life is the special\nactivity of each organised being; the sum of the phenomena proper to\norganised bodies. George Henry Lewes says: \"Life is the functional\nactivity of an organism in relation to its medium. Every part of a\nliving organism is vital as pertaining to life: but no part has this\nlife when isolated; for life is the synthesis of all the parts.\"\nTheologians sometimes seek to make contrasts between living animals and\nwhat they are pleased to term dead matter. Life is not a contrast to\nnon-living substance, but a different condition of it.\n\nBy the word \"matter,\" or \"substance,\" or \"nature,\" is intended the sum\nof all phenomena, actual, past, possible, and of all that is necessary\nfor the happening of any and every phenomenon.\n\nThe word \"force\" includes every phase of activity. Force does not\nexpress an entity, but is the word by which we account for, or rather\nthe word by the use of which we avoid explaining, the activity of\nmatter, or, as G.H. Lewes would write it, the activity of the felt. He\nsays: \"All we know is feeling and changes of feeling. We class the felt\napart from the changes, the one as matter, the other as force. The\nqualities of matter are our feelings; the properties of matter are its\nqualities, viewed in reference to the effects of one body on another,\nrather than their effects on us. Both qualities and properties are\nforces, when considered as affecting changes.\" By the \"mind\" of any\nanimal is meant the sum of the remembered perceptions of that animal,\nand its, his, or her, thinkings on such perceptions. Says Max Mueller:\n\"All consciousness begins with sensuous perception, with what we feel,\nand hear, and see.\" \"Out of this we construct what may be called\nconceptual knowledge.\" \"Thinking consists simply in addition and\nsubtraction of precepts and concepts.\"\n\nThose who maintain the doctrine of what is called the immortality of the\nsoul, contend for the existence of a living, thinking spirit, which,\nthey say, is not the body, and which, they urge, will continue when the\nbody has ceased. The burden of proving this \"soul\" rests on those who\nmaintain and assert it. It is clear that there is no identity between\nlife and \"soul;\" life commences, varies, and ceases, in accordance with\nthe growth, decay, and dissolution of the body. The orthodox contention\nfor soul must be that its existence is independent of the body, and this\nshows that soul is not life. Nor is there any identity between mind and\nsoul. All perception is dependent on the (bodily) perceptive ability and\nits exercise. All thought has some action of the bodily organism for its\nimmediate antecedent and accompaniment. As the soul is not life, is not\nmind, and cannot be body, what is it? To call it spirit, and to leave\nthe word spirit undefined is to do nothing. Religionists talk to me of\nmy \"soul;\" that is, an individual soul continuing to exist, they say,\nwith a continuing consciousness of personal identity after \"I\" am dead.\nBut if a baby two months old dies, what consciousness of personal\nidentity continues in such a case? Or, if an idiot from birth dies at\nthe age of eighteen: or if a person, sane until twenty, becomes insane,\nlives insane until forty, and then dies: in either of these two cases\nwhat is it that is supposed to be the personal identity which continues\nafter death? And what is meant by my \"soul\" living after \"I\" am dead?\nThe word \"I\" to me represents the bodily organism, its vital and mental\nactivities. To tell me that my body dies and that yet my life continues\nis a contradiction in terms. To declare that my life has ended, but that\nI continue to think is to affirm a like contradiction. Religionists seem\nto think that they avoid the difficulty, or turn it upon us, by\npropounding riddles. They analyse the body, and, giving a list of what\nthey call elementary substances, they say: Can oxygen think? can carbon\nthink? can nitrogen think? and when they have triumphantly gone through\nthe list, they add, that as none of these by itself can think, thought\nis not a result of matter, but is a quality of soul. This reasoning at\nbest only amounts to declaring, \"We know what body is, but we know\nnothing of soul; as we cannot understand how body, which we do know, can\nthink, we therefore declare that it is soul, which we do not know, that\ndoes think.\" There is a still greater fault in this theological\nreasoning in favor of the soul, for it assumes, contrary to experience,\nthat no quality or result can be found in a given combination which is\nnot also discoverable in each or any of the modes, parts, atoms, or\nelements combined. Yet this is monstrously absurd. Sugar tastes sweet,\nbut neither carbon, nor oxygen, nor hydrogen, separately tasted,\nexhibits sweetness; yet sugar is the word by which you describe a\ncertain combination of carbon, oxygen, and hydrogen. I contend that the\nword \"soul,\" in relation to human, vital, and mental phenomena, occupies\nan analagous position to that which used to be occupied by such words as\n\"demon,\" \"genii,\" \"gnome,\" \"fairy,\" \"gods,\" in relation to general\nphysical phenomena.\n\nThe ability to think is never found except as an ability of animal\norganisation, and the ability is always found higher or lower as the\norganisation is higher or lower: the exercise of this ability varies in\nchildhood, youth, prime, and old age, and is promoted or hindered by\nclimate, food, and mode of life; yet the orthodox maintainers of soul\nrequire us to believe that the ability to think might be found without\nanimal organisation, and might, nay will, exist independent of all vital\nconditions. They contend that what they call the soul will live when the\nhuman being has ceased to live; but they do not explain whether it did\nlive before the human being began to live. The orthodox contend that as\nwhat they call the elementary substances, taken separately, do not\nthink, therefore man without a soul cannot think, and that as man does\nthink he must have a soul. This argument, if valid at all, goes much too\nfar; a trout thinks, a carp thinks, a rat thinks, a dog thinks, a horse\nthinks, and, by parity of reasoning, all these animals should have\nimmortal souls.\n\nIt is sometimes urged that to deny the immortality of the soul is to\nreduce man to the level of the beast, but it is forgotten that mankind\nare not quite on a level. Take the savage, with lower jaw projecting far\nin advance, and compare him with Dante, Shakspere,\n\nMilton, or Voltaire. Take the Papuan and Plato; the Esquimaux and\nConfucius; and then ask whether it is possible to contend that all human\nbeings have equal souls?\n\nThe orthodox man declares that my soul is spirit, that my body is\nmatter; that my soul has nothing in common with my body; that it exists\nentirely independently of my body; that my soul lives after my body has\nceased to live; that, after my body has decayed, is disintegrated, and\nbecome absorbed in and commingled with the elements, my soul still\ncontinues uncorrupted and unaffected. But not a shadow of proof or even\nof reasonable explanation is offered in support of any clause in this\ndeclaration. The word \"spirit\" is left utterly undefined. No sort of\nexplanation is given of the nexus between the two alleged distinct\nexistences, \"body\" and \"soul.\" Not a trace is suggested of \"soul,\"\notherwise than through what are admittedly material conditions.\n\nThose who allege that there is a distinct \"soul\" which is to live for\never should also explain whether or not this soul has always\nexisted--i.e. whether my soul existed prior to the commencement and\nclearly traceable growth of my body? And where? And for how long? If it\ndid exist prior to my commencement in the womb, how was it then\nidentifiable as my soul? If prior to my body it was not so identifiable,\nhow will it be identifiable after my body has ceased? If the soul\nexisted prior to my body, had it always existed? If yes, do you mean\nthat each soul is eternal? That no soul has ever begun to be?\n\nIf you argue for the eternity of the soul, you deny God as universal\ncreator; if you contend that soul commenced or was commenced, you should\nalso admit that it may finish or be finished. If the soul existed prior\nto my body, had it been waiting inactive, but ready to occupy my body?\nAnd if yes, when did the occupation commence? And was the soul always\nexisting perfect and unimprovable? If after vitalisation the unborn\nchild dies, what becomes of the soul? and what is it in such a case that\nevidences that the particular soul had ever existed? If after birth the\nbaby dies before it thinks, though after it has breathed, where in this\ncase is the trace of the soul? If it should be conceded that my soul\nonly began with my body, why is it to be maintained that it will not\ncease with my body? If, as is pretended, my \"soul\" is not identifiable\nwith my body, how is it that all intellectual manifestations are\naffected by my bodily condition, growth, health, decay? If the soul is\nimmortal and immaterial, how is it that temporary pressure on the brain\nmay paralyse and prevent all mental manifestation, and that fracture by\na poker or by a bullet may annihilate the possibility of any further\nmental activity? Henri Taine and Charles Darwin have very carefully\nnoted for us the evidence of gradual growth of sensitive ability and of\nmind in children. Those who tell us of soul--which is, they say, not\nbody, nor quality of body, nor result of body, nor influenced by\nbody--should at least explain to us how it is that all manifestations\nwhich they say are peculiar to soul keep pace with, and are limited by,\nthe development of body.\n\nWhat the orthodox claim under the word soul is really the totality of\nmental ability--founded in perception--and its exercise; dependent,\nfirst, on the perceptive ability of the perceiver, and, secondly, on the\nrange of the activity of such ability. Even two individuals of similar\nperceptive ability may have a varied store of perceptions, and later\nperceptions in each case, even of identical phenomena, may in\nconsequence have different values. The memory of perception, comparison\nof and distinguishment between perceptions, thoughts upon and concepts\nas to perceptions, memory, comparison and distinguishment of all or any\nof these, the various mental processes included in doubting, believing,\nreasoning, willing, etc., all these--which I contend are the\nconsequences of vital organisation, commence with it, are strengthened\nand weakened, and, which I maintain, cease with it--are included by the\northodox under the word \"soul.\" None of the orthodox, and few of the\nspiritualists, contend that the \"memory\" of the rat, the cow, or the\nhorse is to survive the decease of rat, cow, and horse. Scarcely anyone\nis hardy enough to maintain that the ghost of the thinking sheep\npersists with active thought after the slaughterhouse and dinner of\nroast mutton. Yet if one range of animal mental ability is to be\nclassified as immortal, why not all? Why claim immortality for the\n\"soul\" of the idiot, and deny it to the thought, memory, reason, faith,\ndoubt, and will of the retriever? None claim immortality for the\nbrightness of the steel when oxidation has so disfigured the surface\nthat rust has superseded all brilliance; none claim immortality for the\nsweet odor of the rose when the vegetable mass emits only unpleasant\nsmells and exhibits unsightly rottenness; none claim immortality for the\ncolor of the beautiful lily decayed and withered away. Those who claim\nimmortality for what they call the \"soul\" should first clearly define\nit, and then at least try to prove that the attributes they claim for\nsoul are not the attributes of what we know as living body.\n\nThe word \"mind\" describes all the possible states of consciousness of\neach animal; but as after its death there is no longer in that case any\ncontinuing animal, so neither is there any possibly continuing mind. But\nit is only in connexion with the mental and vital processes that there\nis any shadow of attempt by theologians to in any fashion identify soul,\nand therefore when life has ceased and consciousness is consequently no\nlonger, there is not even the faintest trace of aught remaining to which\nthe word \"soul\" can with any reasonableness be applied from the\ntheological standpoint. Dr. John Drysdale says: \"The mind, looked at in\nits complete state, in its unity, personality, obedience to laws of its\nown, apparent spontaneity of action and controlling power over the body,\nand in the total dissimilarity of all its phenomena from all known\nbodily and material effects, has been almost universally ascribed to the\nworking of an immaterial substance added to organised matter. But such a\nsubstance is quite as hypothetical as the potentiality of mind lying in\nmatter, and hence it explains nothing; whereas, if we grant the\npossibility of consciousness as a concomitant of certain material\nchanges, the peculiarities of mind as an action or function require no\nfurther explanation than the conditions of those changes;\" and, he adds,\n\"it may be held proved in physiology that for every feeling, every\nthought, and every volition, a correlative change takes place in the\nnerve-matter, and, given this special change in every respect identical,\na similar state of circumstances will always arise; that this process\noccupies time, that it requires a due supply of oxygenated blood, that\nit is interrupted or destroyed by whatever impairs the integrity of the\nnerve-matter, and, lastly, it is exhausted by its own activity and\nrequires rest.\"\n\n\"If,\" says the same writer, \"the mind is merely a function of the\nmaterial organism, it must necessarily perish with it. If mind and life\nare a compound of matter and some diffused ethereal spiritual substance,\nthen at death a personal continuance is equally impossible. If mind is a\nspirit at all, it must be a definite, indivisible piece of spiritual\nsubstance; and if naturally indestructible and immortal as the personal\nhuman individual, it must be equally so in all individuals which display\nmind. Now, it is too late in the day to require a single sentence in\nproof of the existence of mind in animals; therefore, if the possession\nof mind naturally involves the immortality of the soul, the latter must\nbe shared equally with the animals who certainly also possess the\nconscious Ego;\" and Dr. J. Drysdale maintains that mind is essentially\nof the same nature in animals and in man, although of higher and wider\nscope in the latter, and that in all cases mind is a function of\norganised matter and necessarily perishes when that organisation ceases.\n\nIn all animals the living brain is essential to all phases of thought.\nThe thought-ability of any animal is always in precise proportion to the\nperfection and activity of the brain. The power of developing thought\ngrows, diminishes, and ceases, the cessation always being complete when\nthe brain ceases to perform its vital functions. If the brain is injured\nthe thought-ability is impaired, the thinking deranged. Yet who to-day\nwould think it wise or necessary, with evidence of aberration of thought\nresulting from local injury, to treat it as a case of demoniacal\npossession?\n\nOne other difficulty in the discussion of this question is that new\ndiscoveries are not taken into account by our spiritual antagonists in\nestimating the value of old formulas. Two thousand three hundred years\nago demonology had not yet passed into the region of fable. Socrates\nspoke of the soul as if it had been specially infused into the body by\nthe Gods, and declared \"that the soul which resides in thy body can\ngovern it at pleasure;\" but such discoveries have since been made in\nphysiology and psychology that were Socrates alive to-day Aristodemus\nmight now well make answers to the old Greek sage which were then\nimpossible. Plato, too, contended for the immortality of the human soul,\nbut under cover of this line of reasoning he also offered proof that the\nworld was an animal and had a like soul. Plato's orthodox admirers today\ncarefully avoid Plato's presentation of the earth as an animal with an\nimmortal soul. David Masson attributes to Auguste Comte the first open\nand clear adoption of a position on the soul question which rendered\nevasion difficult. \"Previous physiological psychologists, including\nphrenologists, had generally shrunk from the extreme to which their\nopponents had said they were committed. They had kept up the\ntime-honored distinction between mind and body; they had used language\nimplying a recognition of some unknown anima, or vital principle,\nconcealed behind the animal organism; some of them had even been anxious\nto vindicate their belief in the immateriality or transcendental nature\nof this principle. But Comte ended all that shilly-shallying. Mind, he\nsaid, is the name for the functions of brain and nerve; mind is brain\nand nerve. This destroyed, that ceases.\"\n\nIn his \"Enigmas of Life\" William Rathbone Greg concedes that \"visible\nand ascertainable phenomena give no countenance to the theory of a\nfuture or spiritual life.\" He urges that a sense of identity, a\nconscious continuity of the Ego, is an essential element of the\ndoctrine, and Mr. Greg speaks of this as accounting for \"the astonishing\ndoctrine of the resurrection of the body which has so strangely and\nthoughtlessly found its way into the popular creed. The primitive\nparents or congealers of that creed--whoever they may have\nbeen--innocent of all science, and oddly muddled in their metaphysics,\nbut resolute in their conviction that the same persons who died here\nshould be, in very deed, the same who should rise\nhereafter--systematised their anticipations into the notion that the\ngrave should give up its actual inmates for their ordained\ntransformation and their allotted fate. The current notion of the\napproaching end of the world, no doubt helped to blind them to the\nvulnerability, and indeed the fatal self-contradictions, of the form in\nwhich they had embodied their faith. Of course, if they had taken time\nto think, or if the Fathers of the Church had been more given to\nthinking in the rigid meaning of the word, they would have discovered\nthat this special form rendered that faith absurd, indefensible, and\nvirtually impossible. They did not know, or they never considered, that\nthe buried body soon dissolves into its elements, which, in the course\nof generations and centuries, pass into other combinations, form part of\nother living creatures, feed and constitute countless organisations one\nafter another; so that when the graves are summoned 'to give up the dead\nthat are in them,' and the sea 'the dead that are in it,' they will be\ncalled on to surrender what they no longer possess, and what no\nsupernatural power can give back to them. It never occurred to those\ncreed makers, who thus took upon themselves to carnalise an idea into a\nfact, that for every atom that once went to make up the body they\ncommitted to the earth, there would be scores of claimants before the\nGreat Day of Account; and that even Omnipotence could scarcely be\nexpected to make the same component part be in two or ten places at\nonce. The original human frames, therefore, _could not be had when_, as\nsupposed, they would be wanted.\" And in his \"Creed of Christendom\" he\nwrites: \"Appearances all testify to the reality and permanence of death;\na fearful onus of proof lies upon those who contend that these\nappearances are deceptive. When we interrogate the vast universe of\norganisation, we see not simply life and death, but gradually growing\nlife and gradually approaching death. After death, all that we have ever\n_known_ of man is gone; all we have ever seen of him is dissolved into\nits component elements; it does not _disappear_ so as to leave us at\nliberty to imagine that it may have gone to exist elsewhere, but is\nactually used up as materials for other purposes.\" There is one alleged\n\"indication of immortality\" which Mr. Greg twice repeats, and to which\nwe will offer a word of reply. His statement is as follows:\n\n\"I refer to that _spontaneous_, irresistible, and, perhaps, nearly\nuniversal, feeling we all experience on watching, just after death, the\nbody of someone we have intimately known; the conviction, I mean a\nsense, a consciousness, an impression _which you have to fight against\nif you wish to disbelieve or shake it off_ that the form lying there is\nnot the Ego you have loved. It does not produce the effect of that\nperson's personality. You miss the Ego though you have the frame. The\nvisible Presence only makes more vivid the sense of actual Absence.\nEvery feature, every substance, every phenomenon is there, and is\nunchanged. You have seen the eyes as firmly closed, the limbs as\nmotionless, the breath almost as imperceptible, the face as fixed and\nexpressionless before, in sleep or in trance, without the same peculiar\nsensation. The impression made is indefinable, and is not the result of\nany conscious process of thought--that that body, quite unchanged to the\neye, is not, and never was your friend--the Ego you were conversant\nwith; and that his or her individuality was not the garment before you\n_plus_ a galvanic current; that, in fact, the Ego you knew once and seek\nstill, _was not that--is not there_. And if not there, it must be\n_elsewhere or nowhere_, and 'nowhere,' I believe, modern science will\nnot suffer us to predicate of either force or substance that once has\nbeen.\"\n\nUndoubtedly the dead body is not the living human being you loved. It\nhas ceased to live. Every phenomenon is not there unchanged, the whole\nof the vital phenomena are wanting; there is a complete change so far as\norganic functional activity is concerned. Even the body itself is not\nquite unchanged to the eye. There is in most cases, and especially to\nskilled vision, an easily detectible difference between a living man and\na corpse. To say that the Ego is not there, and if not there must be\nelsewhere, is to use an absurd phrase. Take an ordinary drinking-glass\nand crush it into powder, or shatter it into fragments, the\ndrinking-glass is not there, nor is it elsewhere; the combination which\nmade up drinking-glass no longer exists. Ego does not denote body only,\nit denotes living body with personal characteristics. Take a bright\nsteel blade, let the surface be oxidised, and the brightness is no\nlonger there, nor is it elsewhere; it is only that the conditions which\nwere resultant in brightness no longer exist.\n\nIt used to be the fashion to argue at one time as if the majority of, if\nnot the whole of, the human race accepted, without doubt, the dogma of\nthe immortality of the soul; but such a contention is to-day utterly\nimpossible. Strauss, Buechner, Haeckel, Clifford, and a host of others,\ntake ground as representatives of thousands of heterodox Europeans, and\neven in the pulpit itself orthodoxy is suspect. The Reverend Edward\nWhite declares the \"natural eternity of souls as a positive dogma to be\ndestitute of all evidence from nature or revelation;\" and he refers to\n\"scientific biologists of the first rank, who, after careful study of\nthe phenomena of brain-production and mind-evolution throughout living\nnature, and of the phenomena of waste and destruction in unfinished\norganisms, declare it to be the height of absurdity to maintain\" this\nimmortality doctrine; and Mr. White reminds us that 480 millions of\nBuddhists on the continent of Asia all believe in the \"extinction of\nindividual being.\" It is only fair, however, to add here that scholars\nstill dispute as to whether or not \"nirvana\" should be read as meaning\nannihilation.\n\nA quotation from Dr. Henry Maudsley may fitly terminate this brief\nessay: \"To those who cannot conceive that any organisation of matter,\nhowever complete, should be capable of such exalted functions as those\nwhich are called mental, is it really more conceivable that any\norganisation of matter can be the mechanical instrument of the complex\nmanifestations of an immaterial mind? It is strangely overlooked by many\nwho write on this matter that the brain is not a dead instrument, but a\nliving organ, with functions of a higher kind than those of any other\nbodily organ, insomuch as its organic nature and structure far surpass\nthose of any other organs. What, then, are those functions if they are\nnot mental? No one thinks it necessary to assume an immaterial liver\nbehind the hepatic structure, in order to account for its functions. But\nso far as the nature of nerve and the complex structure of the cerebral\nconvolutions exceed in dignity the hepatic elements and structure, so\nfar must the material functions of the brain exceed those of the liver.\nMen are not sufficiently careful to ponder the wonderful operations of\nwhich matter is capable, or to reflect on the changes effected by it\nwhich are continually before their eyes. Are the properties of a\nchemical compound less mysterious essentially because of the familiarity\nwith which we handle them? Consider the seed dropped into the ground; it\nswells with germinating energy, bursts its integuments, sends upwards a\ndelicate shoot, which grows into a stem, putting forth in due season its\nleaves and flowers. And yet all these processes are operations of\nmatter, for it is not thought necessary to assume an immaterial or\nspiritual plant which effects its purposes through the agency of the\nmaterial structure which we observe. Surely there are here exhibited\nproperties of matter wonderful enough to satisfy anyone of the powers\nthat may be inherent in it. Are we, then, to believe that the highest\nand most complex development of organic structure is not capable of even\nmore wonderful operations? Would you have the human body, which is a\nmicrocosm containing all the forms and powers of matter, organised in\nthe most delicate and complex manner, to possess lower powers than those\nforms of matter exhibit separately in nature? Trace the gradual\ndevelopment of the nervous system through the animal series, from its\nfirst germ to its most complex evolution, and let it be declared at what\npoint it suddenly loses all its inherent properties as living structure,\nand becomes the mere mechanical instrument of a spiritual entity. In\nwhat animal, or in what class of animals, does the immaterial principle\nabruptly intervene, and supersede the agency of matter, becoming the\nentirely distinct cause of a similar, though more exalted, order of\nphenomena? The burden of proving that the _deus ex machina_ of a\nspiritual entity intervenes somewhere, and where it intervenes, clearly\nlies upon those who make the assertion, or who need the hypothesis. They\nare not justified in arbitrarily fabricating a hypothesis entirely\ninconsistent with experience of the orderly development of nature, which\neven postulates a domain of nature that human senses cannot take any\ncognisance of, and in then calling upon those who reject their\nassumption to disprove it.\"\n\n\n\n\nIS THERE A GOD\n\n\nTHE initial difficulty is in defining the word \"God.\" It is equally\nimpossible to intelligently affirm or deny any proposition unless there\nis at least an understanding, on the part of the affirmer or denier, of\nthe meaning of every word used in the proposition. To me the word \"God\"\nstanding alone is a word without meaning. I find the word repeatedly\nused even by men of education and refinement, and who have won\nreputation in special directions of research, rather to illustrate their\nignorance than to explain their knowledge. Various sects of Theists do\naffix arbitrary meanings to the word \"God,\" but often these meanings are\nin their terms selfcontradictory, and usually the definition maintained\nby one sect of Theists more or less contradicts the definition put\nforward by some other sect. With the Unitarian Jew, the Trinitarian\nChristian, the old Polytheistic Greek, the modern Universalist, or the\nCalvinist, the word \"God\" will in each case be intended to express a\nproposition absolutely irreconcilable with those of the other sects. In\nthis brief essay, which can by no means be taken as a complete answer to\nthe question which forms its title, I will for the sake of argument take\nthe explanation of the word \"God\" as given with great carefulness by Dr.\nRobert Flint, Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh, in\ntwo works directed by him against Atheism. He defines God (\"Antitheistic\nTheories,\" p. 1,) as \"a supreme, self-existent, omnipotent, omniscient,\nrighteous and benevolent being who is distinct from and independent of\nwhat he has created;\" (\"Theism,\" p. 1,) as \"a self-existent, eternal\nbeing, infinite in power and wisdom, and perfect in holiness and\ngoodness, the maker of heaven and earth;\" and (p. 18,) \"the creator and\npreserver of nature, the governor of nations, the heavenly father and\njudge of man;\" (p. 18,) \"one infinite personal;\" (p. 42,) \"the one\ninfinite\" being\" who \"is a person--is a free and loving intelligence;\"\n(p. 59,) \"the creator, preserver, and ruler of all finite beings;\" (p.\n65,) \"not only the ultimate cause, but the supreme intelligence;\" and\n(p. 74,) \"the supreme moral intelligence is an unchangeable being.\" That\nis, in the above statements \"God\" is defined by Professor Flint to be:\n_A supreme, self-existent, the one infinite, eternal, omnipotent,\nomniscient, unchangeable, righteous, and benevolent, personal being,\ncreator and preserver of nature, maker of heaven and earth; who is\ndistinct from and independent of what he has created, who is a free,\nloving, supreme, moral intelligence, the governor of nations, the\nheavenly father and judge of man._\n\nThe two volumes, published by William Blackwood and Son, from which this\ndefinition has been collected, form the Baird Lectures in favor of\nTheism for the years 1876 and 1877. Professor Flint has a well-deserved\nreputation as a clear thinker and writer of excellent ability as a\nTheistic advocate. I trust, therefore, I am not acting unfairly in\ncriticising his definition. My first objection is, that to me the\ndefinition is on the face of it so self-contradictory that a negative\nanswer must be given to the question, Is there such a God? The\nassociation of the word \"supreme\" with the word \"infinite\" as\ndescriptive of a \"personal being\" is utterly confusing. \"Supreme\" can\nonly be used as expressing comparison between the being to whom it is\napplied, and some other being with whom that \"supreme\" being is assumed\nto have possible points of comparison and is then compared. But \"the one\ninfinite being\" cannot be compared with any other infinite being, for\nthe wording of the definition excludes the possibility of any other\ninfinite being, nor could the infinite being--for the word \"one\" may be\ndispensed with, as two infinite beings are unthinkable--be compared with\nany finite being. \"Supreme\" is an adjective of relation and is totally\ninapplicable to \"the infinite.\" It can only be applied to one of two or\nmore finites. \"Supreme\" with \"omnipotent\" is pleonastic. If it is said\nthat the word \"supreme\" is now properly used to distinguish between the\nCreator and the created, the governor and that which is governed, then\nit is clear that the word \"supreme\" would have been an inapplicable word\nof description to \"the one infinite being\" prior to creation, and this\nwould involve the declaration that the exact description of the\nunchangeable has been properly changed, which is an absurdity. The\ndefinition affirms \"creation,\" that is, affirms \"God\" existing prior to\nsuch creation--i.e., then the sole existence; but the word \"supreme\"\ncould not then apply. An existence cannot be described as \"highest\" when\nthere is none other; therefore, none less high. The word \"supreme\" as a\nword of description is absolutely contradictory of Monism. Yet Professor\nFlint himself says (\"Anti-Theistic Theories,\" p. 132), \"that reason,\nwhen in quest of an ultimate explanation of things, imperatively demands\nunity, and that only a Monistic theory of the universe can deserve the\nname of a philosophy.\" Professor Flint has given no explanation of the\nmeaning he attaches to the word \"self-existent.\" Nor, indeed, has he\ngiven any explanation of any of his words of description. By\nself-existent I mean that to which you cannot conceive antecedent. By\n\"infinite\" I mean immeasurable, illimitable, indefinable; i.e., that of\nwhich I cannot predicate extension, or limitation of extension. By\n\"eternal\" I mean illimitable, indefinable, i.e., that of which I cannot\npredicate limitation of duration or progression of duration.\n\n\"Nature\" is with me the same as \"universe,\" the same as \"existence;\"\ni.e., I mean by it: The totality of all phenomena, and of all that has\nbeen, is, or may be necessary for the happening of each and every\nphenomenon. It is from the very terms of the definition, self-existent,\neternal, infinite. I cannot think of nature commencement, discontinuity,\nor creation. I am unable to think backward to the possibility of\nexistence not having been. I cannot think forward to the possibility of\nexistence ceasing to be. I have no meaning for the word \"create\" except\nto denote change of condition. Origin of \"universe\" is to me absolutely\nunthinkable. Sir William Hamilton (\"Lectures and Discussions,\" p. 610)\naffirms: that when aware of a new appearance we are utterly unable to\nconceive that there has originated any new existence; that we are\nutterly unable to think that the complement of existence has ever been\neither increased or diminished; that we can neither conceive nothing\nbecoming something, or something becoming nothing. Professor Flint's\ndefinition affirms \"God\" as existing \"distinct from, and independent of,\nwhat he has created.\" But what can such words mean when used of the\n\"infinite?\" Does \"distinct from\" mean separate from? Does the \"universe\"\nexisting distinct from God mean in addition to? and in other place than?\nor, have the words no meaning?\n\nOf all words in Professor Flint's definition, which would be appropriate\nif used of human beings, I mean the same as I should mean if I used the\nsame words in the highest possible degree of any human being. Here I\nmaintain the position taken by John Stuart Mill in his examination of\nSir W. Hamilton (p. 122). Righteousness and benevolence are two of the\nwords of description included in the definition of this creator and\ngovernor of nations. But is it righteous and benevolent to create men\nand govern nations so that the men act criminally and the nations seek\nto destroy one another in war? Professor Flint does not deny (\"Theism,\"\np. 256) \"that God could have originated a sinless moral system,\" and he\nadds: \"I have no doubt that God has actually made many moral beings who\nare certain never to oppose their own wills to his, or that he might, if\nhe had so pleased, have created only such angels as were sure to keep\ntheir first estate.\" But it is inaccurate to describe a \"God\" as\nrighteous or benevolent who, having the complete power to originate a\nsinless moral system, is admitted to have originated a system in which\nsinfulness and immorality were not only left possible, but have\nactually, in consequence of God's rule and government, become abundant.\nIt cannot be righteous for the \"omnipotent\" to be making human beings\ncontrived and designed by his omniscience so as to be fitted for the\ncommission of sin. It cannot be benevolent in \"God\" to contrive and\ncreate a hell in which he is to torment the human beings who have sinned\nbecause made by him in sin. \"God,\" if omnipotent and omniscient, could\njust as easily, and much more benevolently, have contrived that there\nshould never be any sinners, and, therefore, never any need for hell or\ntorment.\n\nThe Rev. R.A. Armstrong, with whom I debated this question, says:--\n\n\"'Either,' argues Mr. Bradlaugh, in effect, 'God could make a world\nwithout suffering, or he could not. If he could and did not, he is not\nall-good. If he could not, he is not all-powerful.' The reply is, What\ndo you mean by all-powerful? If you mean having power to reconcile\nthings in themselves contradictory, we do not hold that God is\nall-powerful. But a humanity, from the first enjoying immunity from\nsuffering, and yet possessed of nobility of character, is a\nself-contradictory conception.\"\n\nThat is, Mr. Armstrong thinks that a \"sinless moral system from the\nfirst is a self-contradictory conception.\"\n\nIt is difficult to think a loving governor of nations arranging one set\nof cannibals to eat, and another set of human beings to be eaten by\ntheir fellow-men. It is impossible to think a loving creator and\ngovernor contriving a human being to be born into the world the\npre-natal victim of transmitted disease. It is repugnant to reason to\naffirm this \"free loving supreme moral intelligence\" planning and\ncontriving the enduring through centuries of criminal classes,\nplague-spots on civilisation.\n\nThe word \"unchangeable\" contradicts the word \"creator.\" Any theory of\ncreation must imply some period when the being was not yet the creator,\nthat is, when yet the creation was not performed, and the act of\ncreation must in such case, at any rate, involve temporary or permanent\nchange in the mode of existence of the being creating. So, too, the\nwords of description \"governor of nations\" are irreconcileable with the\ndescription \"unchangeable,\" applied to a being alleged to have existed\nprior to the creation of the \"nations,\" and therefore, of course, long\nbefore any act of government could be exercised.\n\nTo speak of an infinite personal being seems to me pure contradiction of\nterms. All attempts to think \"person\" involve thoughts of the limited,\nfinite, conditioned. To describe this infinite personal being as\ndistinct from some thing which is postulated as \"what he has created\" is\nonly to emphasise the contradiction, rendered perhaps still more marked\nwhen the infinite personal being is described as \"intelligent.\"\n\nThe Rev. R.A. Armstrong, in a prefatory note to the report of his debate\nwith myself on the question \"Is it reasonable to worship God?\" says: \"I\nhave ventured upon alleging an intelligent cause of the phenomena of the\nuniverse, in spite of the fact that in several of his writings Mr.\nBradlaugh has described intelligence as implying limitations. But though\nintelligence, as known to us in man, is always hedged within limits,\nthere is no difficulty in conceiving each and every limit as removed. In\nthat case the essential conception of intelligence remains the same\nprecisely, although the change of conditions revolutionises its mode of\nworking.\" This, it seems to me, is not accurate. The word intelligence\ncan only be accurately used of man, as in each case meaning the totality\nof mental ability, its activity and result. If you eliminate in each\ncase all possibilities of mental ability there is no \"conception of\nintelligence\" left, either essential or otherwise. If you attempt to\nremove the limits, that is the organisation, the intelligence ceases to\nbe thinkable. It is unjustifiable to talk of \"change of conditions\" when\nyou remove the word intelligence as a word of application to man or\nother thinking animal, and seek to apply the word to the unconditional.\n\nAs an Atheist I affirm one existence, and deny the possibility of more\nthan one existence; by existence meaning, as I have already stated, \"the\ntotality of all phenomena, and of all that has been, is, or may be\nnecessary for the happening of any and every phenomenon.\" This existence\nI know in its modes, each mode being distinguished in thought by its\nqualities. By \"mode\" I mean each cognised condition; that is, each\nphenomenon or aggregation of phenomena. By \"quality\" I mean each\ncharacteristic by which in the act of thinking I distinguish.\n\nThe distinction between the Agnostic and the Atheist is that either the\nAgnostic postulates an unknowable, or makes a blank avowal of general\nignorance. The Atheist does not do either; there is of course to him\nmuch that is yet unknown, every effort of inquiry brings some of this\nwithin reach of knowing. With \"the unknowable\" conceded, all scientific\nteaching would be illusive. Every real scientist teaches without\nreference to \"God\" or \"the unknowable.\" If the words come in as part of\nthe yesterday habit still clinging to-day, the scientist conducts his\nexperiments as though the words were not. Every operation of life, of\ncommerce, of war, of statesmanship, is dealt with as though God were\nnonexistent. The general who asks God to give him victory, and who\nthanks God for the conquest, would be regarded as a lunatic by his\nTheistic brethren, if he placed the smallest reliance on God's\nomnipotence as a factor in winning the fight. Cannon, gunpowder, shot,\nshell, dynamite, provision, men, horses, means of transport, the value\nof these all estimated, then the help of \"God\" is added to what is\nenough without God to secure the triumph. The surgeon who in performing\nsome delicate operation relied on God instead of his instruments--the\nphysician who counted on the unknowable in his prescription--these would\nhave poor clientele even amongst the orthodox; save the peculiar people\nthe most pious would avoid their surgical or medical aid. The \"God\" of\nthe Theist, the \"unknowable\" of the Agnostic, are equally opposed to the\nAtheistic affirmation. The Atheist enquires as to the unknown, affirms\nthe true, denies the untrue. The Agnostic knows not of any proposition\nwhether it be true or false.\n\nPantheists affirm one existence, but Pantheists declare that at any rate\nsome qualities are infinite, e.g. that existence is infinitely\nintelligent. I, as an Atheist, can only think qualities of phenomena. I\nknow each phenomenon by its qualities. I know no qualities except as the\nqualities of some phenomenon.\n\nSo long as the word \"God\" is undefined I do not deny \"God.\" To the\nquestion, Is there such a God as defined by Professor Flint, I am\ncompelled to give a negative reply. If the word \"God\" is intended to\naffirm Dualism, then as a Monist I negate \"God.\"\n\nThe attempts to prove the existence of God may be divided into three\nclasses:--1. Those which attempt to prove the objective existence of God\nfrom the subjective notion of necessary existence in the human mind, or\nfrom the assumed objectivity of space and time, interpreted as the\nattributes of a necessary substance. 2. Those which \"essay to prove the\nexistence of a supreme self-existent cause, from the mere fact of the\nexistence of the world by the application of the principle of causality,\nstarting with the postulate of any single existence whatsoever, the\nworld, or anything in the world, and proceeding to argue backwards or\nupwards, the existence of one supreme cause is held to be regressive\ninference from the existence of these effects.\" But it is enough to\nanswer to these attempts, that if a supreme existence were so\ndemonstrable, that bare entity would not be identifiable with \"God.\" \"A\ndemonstration of a primitive source of existence is of no formal\ntheological value. It is an absolute zero.\"\n\n3. The argument from design, or adaptation, in nature, the fitness of\nmeans to an end, implying, it is said, an architect or designer. Or,\nfrom the order in the universe, indicating, it is said, an orderer or\nlawgiver, whose intelligence we thus discern.\n\nBut this argument is a failure, because from finite instances differing\nin character it assumes an infinite cause absolutely the same for all.\nDivine unity, divine personality, are here utterly unproved. \"Why should\nwe rest in our inductive inference of one designer from the alleged\nphenomena of design, when these are claimed to be so varied and so\ncomplex?\"\n\nIf the inference from design is to avail at all, it must avail to show\nthat all the phenomena leading to misery and mischief, must have been\ndesigned and intended by a being finding pleasure in the production and\nmaintenance of this misery and mischief. If the alleged constructor of\nthe universe is supposed to have designed one beneficent result, must he\nnot equally be supposed to have designed all results? And if the\ninference of benevolence and goodness be valid for some instances, must\nnot the inference of malevolence and wickedness be equally valid from\nothers? If, too, any inference is to be drawn from the illustration of\norgans in animals supposed to be specially contrived for certain\nresults, what is the inference to be drawn from the many abortive and\nincomplete organs, muscles, nerves, etc., now known to be traceable in\nman and other animals? What inference is to be drawn from each instance\nof deformity or malformation? But the argument from design, if it proved\nanything, would at the most only prove an arranger of pre-existing\nmaterial; it in no sense leads to the conception of an originator of\nsubstance.\n\nThere is no sort of analogy between a finite artificer arranging a\nfinite mechanism and an alleged divine creator originating all\nexistence. From an alleged product you are only at liberty to infer a\nproducer after having seen a similar product actually produced.\n\n\n\n\nA PLEA FOR ATHEISM\n\n\nTHIS essay is issued in the hope that it may succeed in removing some of\nthe many prejudices prevalent, not only against the actual holders of\nAtheistic opinions, but also against those wrongfully suspected of\nAtheism. Men who have been famous for depth of thought, for excellent\nwit, or great genius, have been recklessly assailed as Atheists by those\nwho lack the high qualifications against which the malice of the\ncalumniators was directed. Thus, not only have Voltaire and Paine been,\nwithout ground, accused of Atheism, but Bacon, Locke, and Bishop\nBerkeley himself, have, amongst others, been denounced by thoughtless or\nunscrupulous pietists as inclining to Atheism, the ground for the\naccusation being that they manifested an inclination to push human\nthought a little in advance of the age in which they lived.\n\nIt is too often the fashion with persons of pious reputation to speak in\nunmeasured language of Atheism as favoring immorality, and of Atheists\nas men whose conduct is necessarily vicious, and who have adopted\nAtheistic views as a desperate defiance against a Deity justly offended\nby the badness of their lives. Such persons urge that amongst the\nproximate causes of Atheism are vicious training, immoral and profligate\ncompanions, licentious living and the like. Dr. John Pye Smith, in his\n\"Instructions on Christian Theology,\" goes so far as to declare that\n\"nearly all the Atheists upon record have been men of extremely\ndebauched and vile conduct.\" Such language from the Christian advocate\nis not surprising, but there are others who, while professing great\ndesire for the spread of Freethought and having pretensions to rank\namongst acute and liberal thinkers, declare Atheism impracticable, and\nits teachings cold, barren, and negative. Excepting to each of the above\nallegations, I maintain that thoughtful Atheism affords greater\npossibility for human happiness than any system yet based on, or\npossible to be founded on, Theism, and that the lives of true Atheists\nmust be more virtuous--because more human--than those of the believers\nin Deity, the humanity of the devout believer often finding itself\nneutralised by a faith with which that humanity is necessarily in\nconstant collision. The devotee piling the faggots at the _auto da fe_\nof a heretic, and that heretic his son, might notwithstanding be a good\nfather in every other respect (see Deuteronomy xiii, 6-10). Heresy, in\nthe eyes of the believer, is highest criminality, and outweighs all\nclaims of family or affection.\n\nAtheism, properly understood, is no mere disbelief: is in no wise a\ncold, barren negative; it is, on the contrary, a hearty, fruitful\naffirmation of all truth, and involves the positive assertion of action\nof highest humanity.\n\nLet Atheism be fairly examined, and neither condemned--its defence\nunheard--on the _ex parte_ slanders of some of the professional\npreachers of fashionable orthodoxy, whose courage is bold enough while\nthe pulpit protects the sermon, but whose valor becomes tempered with\ndiscretion when a free platform is afforded and discussion claimed; nor\nmisjudged because it has been the custom to regard Atheism as so\nunpopular as to render its advocacy impolitic. The best policy against\nall prejudice is to firmly advocate the truth. The Atheist does not say\n\"There is no God\" but he says: \"I know not what you mean by God; I am\nwithout idea of God; the word 'God' is to me a sound conveying no clear\nor distinct affirmation. I do not deny God, because I cannot deny that\nof which I have no conception, and the conception of which, by its\naffirmer, is so imperfect that he is unable to define it to me. If,\nhowever, 'God' is defined to mean an existence other than the existence\nof which I am a mode, then I deny 'God,' and affirm that it is\nimpossible such 'God' can be. That is, I affirm one existence, and deny\nthat there can be more than one.\" The Pantheist also affirms one\nexistence, and denies that there can be more than one; but the\ndistinction between the Pantheist and the Atheist is, that the Pantheist\naffirms infinite attributes for existence, while the Atheist maintains\nthat attributes are the characteristics of mode--i.e., the diversities\nenabling the conditioning in thought.\n\nWhen the Theist affirms that his God is an existence other than, and\nseparate from, the so-called material universe, and when he invests this\nseparate, hypothetical existence with the several attributes of\npersonality, omniscience, omnipresence, omnipotence, eternity, infinity,\nimmutability, and perfect goodness, then the Atheist in reply says: \"I\ndeny the existence of such a being;\" and he is entitled to say this\nbecause this Theistic definition is selfcontradictory, as well as\ncontradictory of every-day experience.\n\nIf you speak to the Atheist of God as creator, he answers that the\nconception of creation is impossible. We are utterly unable to construe\nit in thought as possible that the complement of existence has been\neither increased or diminished, much less can we conceive an absolute\norigination of substance. We cannot conceive either, on the one hand,\nnothing becoming something, or on the other, something becoming nothing.\nThe words \"creation\" and \"destruction\" have no value except as applied\nto phenomena. You may destroy a gold coin, but you have only destroyed\nthe condition, you have not affected the substance. \"Creation\" and\n\"destruction\" denote change of phenomena, they do not denote origin or\ncessation of substance. The Theist who speaks of God creating the\nuniverse, must either suppose that Deity evolved it out of himself, or\nthat he produced it from nothing. But the Theist cannot regard the\nuniverse as evolution of Deity, because this would identify Universe and\nDeity, and be Pantheism rather than Theism. There would be no\ndistinction of substance--no creation. Nor can the Theist regard the\nuniverse as created out of nothing, because Deity is, according to him,\nnecessarily eternal and infinite. God's existence being eternal and\ninfinite, precludes the possibility of the conception of vacuum to be\nfilled by the universe if created. No one can even think of any point in\nextent or duration and say: Here is the point of separation between the\ncreator and the created. It is not possible for the Theist to imagine a\nbeginning to the universe. It is not possible to conceive either an\nabsolute commencement, or an absolute termination of existence; that is,\nit is impossible to conceive beginning, before which you have a period\nwhen the universe has yet to be; or to conceive an end, after which the\nuniverse, having been, no longer exists. The Atheist affirms that he\ncognises to-day effects; that these are, at the same time, causes and\neffects--causes to the effects they precede, effects to the causes they\nfollow. Cause is simply everything without which the effect would not\nresult, and with which it must result. Cause is the means to an end,\nconsummating itself in that end. Cause is the word we use to include all\nthat determines change. The Theist who argues for creation must assert a\npoint of time--that is, of duration, when the created did not yet exist.\nAt this point of time either something existed or nothing; but something\nmust have existed, for out of nothing nothing can come. Something must\nhave existed, because the point fixed upon is that of the duration of\nsomething. This something must have been either finite or infinite; if\nfinite it could not have been God, and if the something were infinite,\nthen creation was impossible: it is impossible to add to infinite\nexistence.\n\nIf you leave the question of creation and deal with the government of\nthe universe, the difficulties of Theism are by no means lessened. The\nexistence of evil is then a terrible stumbling block to the Theist.\nPain, misery, crime, poverty, confront the advocate of eternal goodness,\nand challenge with unanswerable potency his declaration of Deity as\nall-good, all-wise, and all-powerful. A recent writer in the _Spectator_\nadmits that there is what it regards \"as the most painful, as it is\noften the most incurable, form of Atheism--the Atheism arising from a\nsort of horror of the idea of an Omnipotent Being permitting such a\nproportion of misery among the majority of his creatures.\" Evil is\neither caused by God, or exists independently; but it cannot be caused\nby God, as in that case he would not be all-good; nor can it exist\nhostilely, as in that case he would not be all-powerful. If all-good he\nwould desire to annihilate evil, and continued evil contradicts either\nGod's desire, or God's ability, to prevent it. Evil must either have had\na beginning or it must have been eternal; but, according to the Theist,\nit cannot be eternal, because God alone is eternal. Nor can it have had\na beginning, for if it had it must either have originated in God, or\noutside God; but, according to the Theist, it cannot have originated in\nGod for he is all-good, and out of all-goodness evil cannot originate;\nnor can evil have originated outside God, for, according to the Theist,\nGod is infinite, and it is impossible to go outside of or beyond\ninfinity.\n\nTo the Atheist this question of evil assumes an entirely different\naspect. He declares that each evil is a result, but not a result from\nGod nor Devil. He affirms that conduct founded on knowledge of the laws\nof existence may ameliorate each present form of evil, and, as our\nknowledge increases, prevent its future recurrence.\n\nSome declare that the belief in God is necessary as a check to crime.\nThey allege that the Atheist may commit murder, lie, or steal without\nfear of any consequences. To try the actual value of this argument, it\nis not unfair to ask: Do Theists ever steal? If yes, then in each such\ntheft the belief in God and his power to punish has been insufficient as\na preventive of the crime. Do Theists ever lie or murder? If yes, the\nsame remark has again force--Theism failing against the lesser as\nagainst the greater crime. Those who use such an argument overlook that\nall men seek happiness, though in very diverse fashions. Ignorant and\nmiseducated men often mistake the true path to happiness, and commit\ncrime in the endeavor to obtain it. Atheists hold that by teaching\nmankind the real road to human happiness it is possible to keep them\nfrom the bye-ways of criminality and error. Atheists would teach men to\nbe moral now, not because God offers as an inducement reward by-and-bye,\nbut because in the virtuous act itself immediate good is insured to the\ndoer and the circle surrounding him. Atheism would preserve man from\nlying, stealing, murdering, not from fear of an eternal agony after\ndeath, but because these crimes make this life itself a course of\nmisery.\n\nWhile Theism, asserting God as the creator and governor of the universe,\nhinders and checks man's efforts by declaring God's will to be the sole\ndirecting and controlling power, Atheism, by declaring all events to be\nin accordance with natural laws--that is, happening in certain\nascertainable sequences--stimulates man to discover the best conditions\nof life, and offers him the most powerful inducements to morality. While\nthe Theist provides future happiness for a scoundrel repentant on his\ndeath-bed, Atheism affirms present and certain happiness for the man who\ndoes his best to live here so well as to have little cause for repenting\nhereafter.\n\nTheism declares that God dispenses health and inflicts disease, and\nsickness and illness are regarded by the Theists as visitations from an\nangered Deity, to be borne with meekness and content. Atheism declares\nthat physiological knowledge may preserve us from disease by preventing\nus from infringing the law of health, and that sickness results not as\nthe ordinance of offended Deity, but from ill-ventilated dwellings and\nworkshops, bad and insufficient food, excessive toil, mental suffering,\nexposure to inclement weather, and the like--all these finding root in\npoverty, the chief source of crime and disease; that prayers and piety\nafford no protection against fever, and that if the human being be kept\nwithout food he will starve as quickly whether he be Theist or Atheist,\ntheology being no substitute for bread.\n\nIt is very important, in order that injustice may not be done to the\nTheistic argument, that we should have--in lieu of a clear definition,\nwhich it seems useless to ask for--the best possible clue to the meaning\nintended to be conveyed by the word \"God.\" If it were not that the word\nis an arbitrary term, maintained for the purpose of influencing the\nignorant, and the notions suggested by which are vague and entirely\ncontingent upon individual fancies, such a clue could probably be most\neasily and satisfactorily obtained by tracing back the word \"God,\" and\nascertaining the sense in which it was used by the uneducated\nworshippers who have gone before us, and collating this with the more\nmodern Theism, qualified as it is by the superior knowledge of to-day.\nDupuis says: \"Le mot _Dieu_ parait destine a exprimer l'idee de la force\nuniverselle et eternellement active qui imprime le mouvement a tout dans\nla Nature, suivant les lois d'une harmonie constante et admirable, qui\nse developpe dans les diverses formes que prend la matiere organisee,\nqui se mele a tout, anime tout, et qui semble etre une dans ses\nmodifications infiniment variees, et n'appartenir qu'a elle-meme.\" \"The\nword God appears intended to express the universal and eternally active\nforce which endows all nature with motion according to the laws of a\nconstant and admirable harmony; which develops itself in the diverse\nforms of organised matter, which mingles with all, gives life to all;\nwhich seems to be one through all its infinitely varied modifications,\nand inheres in itself alone.\"\n\nIn the \"Bon Sens\" of Cure Meslier, it is asked: \"Qu'est-ce que Dieu?\"\nand the answer is: \"C'est un mot abstrait fait pour designer la force\ncachee de la nature; ou c'est un point mathematique qui n'a ni longueur,\nni largeur, ni pro-fondeur.\" \"It is an abstract word coined to designate\nthe hidden force of nature; or is it a mathematical point having neither\nlength, breadth, nor depth.\"\n\nThe orthodox fringe of the Theism of to-day is Hebraistic in its\norigin--that is, it finds its root in the superstition and ignorance of\na petty and barbarous people nearly destitute of literature, poor in\nlanguage, and almost entirely wanting in high conceptions of humanity.\nIt might, as Judaism is the foundation of Christianity, be fairly\nexpected that the ancient Jewish records would aid us in our search\nafter the meaning to be attached to the word \"God.\" The most prominent\nwords in Hebrew rendered God or Lord in English, _Ieue_, and _Aleim_.\nThe first word Ieue, called by our orthodox Jehovah, is equivalent to\n\"that which exists,\" and indeed embodies in itself the only possible\ntrinity in unity--i.e., past, present, and future. There is nothing in\nthis Hebrew word to help us to any such definition as is required for\nthe sustenance of modern Theism. The most we can make of it by any\nstretch of imagination is equivalent to the declaration \"I am, I have\nbeen, I shall be.\" The word _Ieue_ is hardly ever spoken by the\nreligious Jews, who actually in reading substitute for it, Adonai, an\nentirely different word. Dr. Wall notices the close resemblance in sound\nbetween the word _Iehowa_ or _Ieue_, or Jehovah and Jove. In fact\nJupiter and Ieue-pater (God the father) present still closer resemblance\nin sound. Jove is also [--Greek--] whence the word Deus and our Deity.\nThe Greek mythology, far more ancient than that of the Hebrews, has\nprobably found for Christianity many other and more important features\nof coincidence than that of a similarly sounding name. The word\n[--Greek--] traced back, affords us no help beyond that it identifies\nDeity with the universe. Plato says that the early Greeks thought that\nthe only Gods [--Greek--] were the sun, moon, earth, stars, and heaven.\nThe word Aleim, assists us still less in defining the word God, for\nParkhurst translates it as a plural noun signifying \"the curser,\"\nderiving it from the verb _to curse_. Dr. Colenso has collected for us a\nstore of traditional meanings for the IAO of the Greek, and the _Ieue_\nof the Hebrew, but though these are interesting to the student of\nmythology, they give no help to the Theistic demonstrator. Finding that\nphilology aids us but little, we must endeavor to arrive at the meaning\nof the word \"God\" by another rule. It is utterly impossible to fix the\nperiod of the rise of Theism amongst any particular people; but it is,\nnotwithstanding, comparatively easy, if not to trace out the development\nof Theistic ideas, at any rate to point to their probable course of\ngrowth amongst all peoples.\n\nKeightley, in his \"Origin of Mythology,\" says: \"Supposing, for the sake\nof hypothesis, a race of men in a state of total or partial ignorance of\nDeity, their belief in many Gods may have thus commenced: They saw\naround them various changes brought about by human agency, and hence\nthey knew the power of intelligence to produce effects. When they beheld\nother and greater effects, they ascribed them to some unseen being,\nsimilar but superior to man.\" They associated particular events with\nspecial unknown beings (Gods), to each of whom they ascribed either a\npeculiarity of power, or a sphere of action not common to other Gods.\nThus, one was God of the sea, another God of war, another God of love,\nanother ruled the thunder and lightning; and thus through the various\nthen known elements of the universe, and the passions of humankind.\n\nThis mythology became modified with the commencement of human knowledge.\nThe ability to think has proved itself oppugnant to, and destructive of,\nthe reckless desire to worship, characteristic of semi-barbarism.\nScience has razed altar after altar heretofore erected to the unknown\nGods, and has pulled down Deity after Deity from the pedestals on which\nignorance and superstition had erected them. The priest, who had\nformerly spoken as the oracle of God, lost his sway just in proportion\nas the scientific teacher succeeded in impressing mankind with a\nknowledge of the facts around them. The ignorant, who had hitherto\nlistened unquestioning during centuries of abject submission to their\nspiritual preceptors, at last commenced to search and examine for\nthemselves, and were guided by experience rather than by church\ndoctrine. To-day advancing intellect challenges the reserve guard of the\nold armies of superstition, and compels a conflict in which humankind\nmust in the end have great gain by the forced enunciation of the truth.\n\nFrom the word \"God\" the Theist derives no argument in his favor; it\nteaches nothing, defines nothing, demonstrates nothing, explains\nnothing. The Theist answers that this is no sufficient objection; that\nthere are many words which are in common use to which the same objection\napplies. Even if this were true, it does not answer the Atheist's\nobjection. Alleging a difficulty on the one side is not a removal of the\nobstacle already pointed out on the other.\n\nThe Theist declares his God to be not only immutable, but also\ninfinitely intelligent, and says: \"Matter is either essentially\nintelligent or essentially non-intelligent; if matter were essentially\nintelligent, no matter could be without intelligence; but matter cannot\nbe essentially intelligent, because some matter is not intelligent,\ntherefore matter is essentially non-intelligent; but there is\nintelligence, therefore there must be a cause for the intelligence,\nindependent of matter--this must be an intelligent being--i.e., God.\"\nThe Atheist answers: I do not know what is meant, in the mouth of the\nTheist, by \"matter.\" \"Matter,\" \"nature,\" \"substance,\" \"existence,\" are\nwords having the same signification in the Atheist's vocabulary. Lewes\nused \"matter\" as the \"symbol of all the known properties, statical and\ndynamical, passive and active; i.e., subjectively, as feeling and change\nof feeling, or objectively, as agent and action;\" and Mill defined\n\"nature\" as \"the sum of all phenomena, together with the causes which\nproduce them, including not only all that happens, but all that is\ncapable of happening.\" It is not certain that the Theist expresses any\nvery clear idea to himself when he uses the words \"matter\" and\n\"intelligence;\" it is quite certain that he has not yet shown himself\ncapable of communicating this idea, and that any effort he makes is\ncouched in terms which are self-contradictory. Reason and understanding\nare sometimes treated as separate faculties, yet it is not unfair to\npresume that the Theist would include them both under the word\nintelligence. Perception is the foundation of the intellect. The\nperceptive ability differs in each animal; yet, in speaking of matter,\nthe Theist uses the word \"intelligence\" as though the same meaning were\nto be understood in every case. The recollection of the perceptions is\nthe exercise of a different ability from the perceptive ability, and\noccasionally varies disproportionately; thus, an individual may have\ngreat perceptive abilities, and very little memory, or the reverse; yet\nmemory, as well as perception, is included in intelligence. So also the\ncomparing between two or more perceptions; the judging and the\nreflecting; all these are subject to the same remarks, and all these and\nother phases of the mind are included in the word intelligence. We\nanswer, then, that \"God\" (whatever that word may mean) cannot be\nintelligent. He can never perceive; the act of perception results in the\nobtaining a new idea, but if God be omniscient, his ideas have been\neternally the same. He has either been always, and always will be,\nperceiving, or he has never perceived at all. But God cannot have been\nalways perceiving, because, if he had, he would always have been\nobtaining fresh knowledge, in which case he must at some time have had\nless knowledge than now: that is, he would have been less perfect: that\nis, he would not have been God. He can never recollect nor forget; he\ncan never compare, reflect, nor judge. There cannot be perfect\nintelligence without understanding; but following Coleridge,\n\"understanding is the faculty of judging according to sense.\" The\nfaculty of whom? Of some person, judging according to that person's\nsenses. But has \"God\" senses? Is there anything beyond \"God\" for God to\nsensate? There cannot be perfect intelligence without reason. By reason\nwe mean that phase of the mind which avails itself of past and present\nexperience to predicate more or less accurately of possible experience\nin the future. To God there can be neither past nor future, therefore to\nhim reason is impossible. There cannot be perfect intelligence without\nwill; but has God will? If God wills, the will of the all-powerful must\nbe irresistible; the will of the infinite must exclude all other wills.\n\nGod can never perceive. Perception and sensation are identical. Every\nsensation is pleasurable or painful. But God, if immutable, can neither\nbe pleased nor pained. Every fresh sensation involves a change in mental\nand perhaps in physical condition. God, if immutable, cannot change.\nSensation is the source of all ideas, but it is only objects external to\nthe mind which can be sensated. If God be infinite there can be no\nobjects external to him, and therefore sensation must be to him\nimpossible. Yet without perception where is intelligence?\n\nGod cannot have memory nor reason--memory is of the past, reason for the\nfuture, but to God immutable there can be no past, no future. The words\npast, present, and future imply change: they assert progression of\nduration. If God be immutable, to him change is impossible. Can you have\nintelligence destitute of perception, memory, and reason? God cannot\nhave the faculty of judgment--judgment implies in the act of judging a\nconjoining or disjoining of two or more thoughts, but this involves\nchange of mental condition. To God the immutable, change is impossible.\nCan you have intelligence, yet no perception, no memory, no reason, no\njudgment? God cannot think. The law of the thinkable is, that the thing\nthought must be separated from the thing which is not thought. To think\notherwise would be to think of nothing--to have an impression with no\ndistinguishing mark, would be to have no impression. Yet this separation\nimplies change, and to God, immutable, change is impossible. In memory,\nthe thing remembered is distinguished from the thing temporarily or\npermanently forgotten. Can God forget? Can you have intelligence without\nthought? If the Theist replies to this, that he does not mean by\ninfinite intelligence as an attribute of Deity, an infinity of the\nintelligence found in a finite degree in humankind, then he is bound to\nexplain, clearly and distinctly, what other \"intelligence\" he means; and\nuntil this be done the foregoing statements require answer.\n\nThe Atheist does not regard \"substance\" as either essentially\nintelligent or the reverse. Intelligence is the result of certain\nconditions of existence. Burnished steel is bright--that is, brightness\nis the characteristic of a certain condition of existence. Alter the\ncondition, and the characteristic of the condition no longer exists. The\nonly essential of substance is existence. Alter the wording of the\nTheist's objection:--Matter is either essentially bright, or essentially\nnon-bright. If matter were essentially bright, brightness should be the\nessence of all matter; but matter cannot be essentially bright, because\nsome matter is not bright, therefore matter is essentially non-bright;\nbut there is brightness; therefore there must be a cause for this\nbrightness independent of matter--that is, there must be an essentially\nbright being--i.e. God.\n\nAnother Theistic proposition is thus stated: \"Every effect must have a\ncause; the first cause universal must be eternal: ergo, the first cause\nuniversal must be God.\" This is equivalent to saying that \"God\" is\n\"first cause.\" But what is to be understood by cause? Defined in the\nabsolute, the word has no real value. \"Cause,\" therefore, cannot be\neternal. What can be understood by \"first cause?\" To us the two words\nconvey no meaning greater than would be conveyed by the phrase \"round\ntriangle.\" Cause and effect are correlative terms--each cause is the\neffect of some precedent; each effect the cause of its consequent. It is\nimpossible to conceive existence terminated by a primal or initial\ncause. The \"beginning,\" as it is phrased, of the universe is not thought\nout by the Theist, but conceded without thought. To adopt the language\nof Montaigne; \"Men make themselves believe that they believe.\" The\nso-called belief in Creation is nothing more than the prostration of the\nintellect on the threshold of the unknown. We can only cognise the\never-succeeding phenomena of existence as a line in continuous and\neternal evolution. This line has to us no beginning; we trace it back\ninto the misty regions of the past but a little way, and however far we\nmay be able to journey there is still the great beyond. Then what is\nmeant by \"universal cause?\" Spinoza gives the following definition of\ncause, as used in its absolute signification: \"By cause of itself I\nunderstand that, the essence of which involves existence, or that, the\nnature of which can only be considered as existent.\" That is, Spinoza\ntreats \"cause\" absolute and \"existence\" as two words having the same\nmeaning. If this mode of defining the word be contested, then it has no\nmeaning other than its relative signification of a means to an end.\n\"Every effect must have a cause.\" Every effect implies the plurality of\neffects, and necessarily that each effect must be finite; but how is it\npossible from finite effect to logically deduce a universal--i.e.,\ninfinite cause?\n\nThere are two modes of argument presented by Theists, and by which,\nseparately or combined, they seek to demonstrate the being of a God.\nThese are familiarly known as the arguments _a priori and a posteriori._\n\nThe _a posteriori_ argument has been popularised in England by Paley,\nwho has ably endeavored to hide the weakness of his demonstration under\nan abundance of irrelevant illustrations. The reasoning of Paley is very\ndeficient in the essential points where it most needed strength. It is\nutterly impossible to prove by it the eternity or infinity of Deity. As\nan argument founded on analogy, the design argument, as the best, could\nonly entitle its propounder to infer the existence of a finite cause, or\nrather of a multitude of finite causes. It ought not to be forgotten\nthat the illustrations of the eye, the watch, and the man, even if\nadmitted as instances of design, or rather of adaptation, are instances\nof eyes, watches, and men, designed or adapted out of pre-existing\nsubstance, by a being of the same kind of substance, and afford,\ntherefore, no demonstration in favor of a designer alleged to have\nactually created substance out of nothing, and also alleged to have\ncreated a substance entirely different from himself.\n\nThe illustrations of alleged adaptation or design in animal life in its\nembryonic stages are thus dealt with by the late George Henry Lewes:\n\"What rational interpretation can be given to the succession of phases\neach embryo is forced to pass through? None of these phases have any\nadaptation to the future state of the animal, but are in positive\ncontradiction to it, or are simply purposeless; many of them have no\nadaptation, even in its embryonic state. What does the fact imply? There\nis not a single known organism which is not developed out of simpler\nforms. Before it can attain the complex structure which distinguishes\nit, there must be an evolution of forms which distinguish the structures\nof organisms lower in the series. On the hypothesis of a plan which\npre-arranged the organic world, nothing could be more unworthy of a\nsupreme intelligence than this inability to construct an organism at\nonce, without making several tentative efforts, undoing to-day what was\nso carefully done yesterday, and repeating for centuries the same\ntentatives and the same corrections in the same succession. Do not let\nus blink this consideration. There is a traditional phrase which is in\nvogue amongst Anthropomorphists--a phrase which has become a sort of\nargument--the 'Great Architect.' But if we are to admit the human point\nof view, a glance at the facts of embryology must produce very\nuncomfortable reflexions. For what shall we say to an architect who was\nunable--or, being able, was obstinately unwilling--to erect a palace,\nexcept by first using his materials in the shape of a hut, then pulling\nthem down and rebuilding them as a cottage, then adding storey to\nstorey, and room to room, not with any reference to the ultimate\npurposes of a palace, but wholly with reference to the way in which\nhouses were constructed in ancient times? Would there be a chorus of\napplause from the Institute of Architects, and favorable notices in\nnewspapers of this profound wisdom? Yet this is the sort of succession\non which organisms are constructed. The fact has long been familiar; how\nhas it been reconciled with infinite wisdom?\"\n\nThe _a posteriori_ argument can never demonstrate infinity for Deity.\nArguing from an effect finite in extent, the most it could afford would\nbe a cause sufficient for that effect, such cause being possibly finite\nin extent and duration. Professor Flint in his late work in advocacy of\nTheism concedes that \"we cannot deduce the infinite from the finite.\"\nAnd as the argument does not demonstrate God's infinity, neither can it,\nfor the same reason, make out his omniscience, as it is clearly\nimpossible to logically claim infinite wisdom for a God possibly only\nfinite. God's omnipotence remains unproved for the same reason, and\nbecause it is clearly absurd to argue that God exercises power where he\nmay not be. Nor can the _a posteriori_ argument show God's absolute\nfreedom, for as it does nothing more than seek to prove a finite God, it\nis quite consistent with the argument that God's existence is limited\nand controlled in a thousand ways. Nor does this argument show that God\nalways existed; at the best, the proof is only that some cause, enough\nfor the effect, existed before it, but there is no evidence that this\ncause differs from any other causes, which are often as transient as the\neffect itself. And as it does not demonstrate that God has always\nexisted, neither does it demonstrate that he will always exist, or even\nthat he now exists. It is perfectly in accordance with the argument, and\nwith the analogy of cause and effect, that the effect may remain after\nthe cause had ceased to exist. Nor does the argument from design\ndemonstrate one God. It is quite consistent with this argument that a\nseparate cause existed for each effect, or mark of design discovered, or\nthat several causes contributed to some or one of such effects. So that\nif the argument be true, it might result in a multitude of petty\nDeities, limited in knowledge, extent, duration, and power; and still\nworse, each one of this multitude of Gods may have had a cause which\nwould also be finite in extent and duration, and would require another,\nand so on, until the design argument loses the reasoner amongst an\ninnumerable crowd of Deities, none of whom can have the attributes\nclaimed for God.\n\nThe design argument is defective as an argument from analogy, because it\nseeks to prove a Creator God who designed, but does not explain whether\nthis God has been eternally designing, which would be absurd; or, if he\nat some time commenced to design, what then induced him so to commence?\nIt is illogical, for it seeks to prove an immutable Deity, by\ndemonstrating a mutation on the part of Deity.\n\nIt is unnecessary to deal specially with each of the many writers who\nhave used from different stand-points the _a posteriori_ form of\nargument in order to prove the existence of Deity. The objections\nalready stated apply to the whole class; and, although probably each\nillustration used by the Theistic advocate is capable of an elucidation\nentirely at variance with his argument, the main features of objection\nare the same. The argument _a posteriori_ is a method of proof in which\nthe premises are composed of some position of existing facts, and the\nconclusion asserts a position antecedent to those facts. The argument is\nfrom given effects to their causes. It is one form of this argument\nwhich asserts that a man has a moral nature, and from this seeks to\ndeduce the existence of a moral governor. This form has the disadvantage\nthat its premises are illusory. In alleging a moral nature for man, the\nTheist overlooks the fact that the moral nature of man differs somewhat\nin each individual, differs considerably in each nation, and differs\nentirely in some peoples. It is dependent on organisation and education;\nthese are influenced by climate, food, and mode of life. If the argument\nfrom man's nature could demonstrate anything, it would prove a murdering\nGod for the murderer, a lascivious God for the licentious man, a\ndishonest God for the thief, and so through the various phases of human\ninclination. The _a priori_ arguments are methods of proof in which the\nmatter of the premises exists in the order of conception antecedently to\nthat of the conclusion. The argument is from cause to effect. Amongst\nthe prominent Theistic advocates relying upon the _a priori_ argument in\nEngland are Dr. Samuel Clarke, the Rev. Moses Lowman, and William\nGillespie.\n\nAn important contribution to Theistic literature has been the\npublication of the Baird lectures on Theism. The lectures are by\nProfessor Flint, who asks: \"Have we sufficient evidence for thinking\nthat there is a self-existent, eternal being, infinite in power and\nwisdom, and perfect in holiness and goodness, the Maker of heaven and\nearth?\"\n\n\"Theism,\" he affirms, \"is the doctrine that the universe owes its\nexistence, and continuance in existence, to the reason and will of a\nself-existent Being, who is infinitely powerful, wise, and good. It is\nthe doctrine that nature has a Creator and Preserver, the nations a\nGovernor, men a heavenly Father and Judge.\" But he concedes that \"Theism\nis very far from co-extensive with religion. Religion is spread over the\nwhole earth; Theism only over a comparatively small portion of it. There\nare but three Theistic religions--the Mosaic, the Christian, and the\nMuhammadan. They are connected historically in the closest manner--the\nidea of God having been transmitted to the two latter, and not\nindependently originated by them. All other religions are Polytheistic\nor Pantheistic, or both together. Among those who have been educated in\nany of these heathen religions, only a few minds of rare penetration and\npower have been able to rise by their own exertions to a consistent\nTheistic belief. The God of all those among us who believe in God, even\nof those who reject Christianity, who reject all revelation, is the God\nof Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. From these ancient Jewish fathers the\nknowledge of him has historically descended through an unbroken\nsuccession of generations to us. We have inherited it from them. If it\nhad not thus come down to us, if we had not been born into a society\npervaded by it, there is no reason to suppose that we should have found\nit out for ourselves, and still less that we should merely have required\nto open our eyes in order to see it.\"\n\nIf \"Theism is the doctrine that the universe owes its existence to the\nreason and will of a self-existing being who is infinitely powerful,\nwise, and good,\" then it is a doctrine which involves many difficulties\nand absurdities. It assumes that the universe has not always existed.\nThe new existence added when the universe was originated was either an\nimprovement or a deterioration on what had always existed; or it was in\nall respects precisely identical with what had therefore always existed.\nIn the first, if the new universe was an improvement, then the\npreviously self-existent being could not have been infinitely good. If\nthe universe was a deterioration, then the creator could have scarcely\nbeen all-wise, or he could not have been all-powerful. If the universe\nwas in all respects precisely identical with the self-existent being,\nthen it must have been infinitely powerful, wise and good, and must have\nbeen self-existent.\n\nAny of the alternatives is fatal to Theism. Again, if the universe owes\nits existence to God's reason and will, God must, prior to creation,\nhave thought upon the matter until he ultimately determined to create;\nbut, if the creation were wise and good, it would never have been\ndelayed while the infinitely wise and good reasoned about it, and, if\nthe creation were not wise and good, the infinitely wise and good would\nnever have commenced it. Either God willed without motive, or he was\ninfluenced; if he reasoned, there was--prior to the definite willing--a\nperiod of doubt or suspended judgment, all of which is inconsistent with\nthe attributes claimed for deity by Professor Flint. It is hard to\nunderstand how whole nations can have been left by their infinitely\npowerful, wise, and good governor--how many men can have been left by\ntheir infinitely powerful, wise, and good father--without any knowledge\nof himself. Yet this must be so if, as Professor Flint conceives, Theism\nis only spread over a comparatively small portion of the earth. The\nmoral effect of Christian and Muhammadan Theism on the nations\ninfluenced, was well shown in the recent Russo-Turkish War.\n\nEvery Theist must admit that if a God exists, he could have so convinced\nall men of the fact of his existence that doubt, disagreement, or\ndisbelief would be impossible. If he could not do this, he would not be\nomnipotent, or he would not be omniscient--that is, he would not be God.\nEvery Theist must also agree that if a God exists, he would wish all men\nto have such a clear consciousness of his existence and attributes, that\ndoubt, disagreement, or disbelief on this subject would be impossible.\nAnd this, if for no other reason, because that out of doubts and\ndisagreements on religion have too often resulted centuries of\npersecution, strife, and misery, which a good God would desire to\nprevent. If God would not desire this, then he is not all-good, that is,\nhe is not God. But as many men have doubts, as a large majority of\nmankind have disagreements, and as some men have disbeliefs as to God's\nexistence and attributes, it must follow that God does not exist, or\nthat he is not all-wise, or that he is not all-powerful, or that he is\nnot all-good.\n\nMany Theists rely on the intuitional argument. It is, perhaps, best to\nallow the Baird Lecturer to reply to these:--\"Man, say some, knows God\nby immediate intuition, he needs no argument for his existence, because\nhe perceives Him directly--face to face--without any medium. It is easy\nto assert this but obviously the assertion is the merest dogmatism. Not\none man in a thousand who understands what he is affirming will dare to\nclaim to have an immediate vision of God, and nothing can be more likely\nthan that the man who makes such a claim is self-deluded.\" And Professor\nFlint urges that: \"What seem intuitions are often really inferences, and\nnot unfrequently erroneous inferences; what seem the immediate dictates\nof pure reason, or the direct and unclouded perceptions of a special\nspiritual faculty, may be the conceits of fancy, or the products of\nhabits and association, or the reflexions of strong feeling. A man must\nprove to himself, and he must prove to others, that what he takes to be\nan intuition, is an intuition. Is that proof in this case likely to be\neasier or more conclusive than the proof of the Divine existence? The\nso-called immediate perception of God must be shown to be a perception\nand to be immediate; it must be vindicated and verified; and how this is\nto be done, especially if there be no other reasons for believing in God\nthan itself, it is difficult to conceive. The history of religion, which\nis what ought to yield the clearest confirmation of the alleged\nintuition, appears to be from beginning to end a conspicuous\ncontradiction of it. If all men have the spiritual power of directly\nbeholding their Creator--have an immediate vision of God--how happens it\nthat whole nations believe in the most absurd and monstrous Gods? That\nmillions of men are ignorant whether there be one God or thousands?\" And\nstill more strongly he adds: \"The opinion that man has an intuition or\nimmediate perception of God is untenable; the opinion that he has an\nimmediate feeling of God is absurd.\"\n\nEvery child is born into the world an Atheist, and if he grows into a\nTheist, his Deity differs with the country in which the believer may\nhappen to be born, or the people amongst whom he may happen to be\neducated. The belief is the result of education or organisation. This is\npractically conceded by Professor Flint, where he speaks of the God-idea\nas transmitted from the Jews, and says: \"We have inherited it from them.\nIf it had not come down to us, if we had not been born into a society\npervaded by it, there is no reason to suppose that we should have found\nit out for ourselves.\" And further, he maintains that a child is born\n\"into blank ignorance, and, if left entirely to itself, would, probably,\nnever find out as much religious truth as the most ignorant of parents\ncan teach it.\" Religious belief is powerful in proportion to the want of\nscientific knowledge on the part of the believer. The more ignorant the\nmore credulous. In the mind of the Theist \"God\" is equivalent to the\nsphere of the unknown; by the use of the word he answers, without\nthought, problems which might otherwise obtain scientific solution. The\nmore ignorant the Theist, the more numerous his Gods. Belief in God is\nnot a faith founded on reason. Theism is worse than illogical; its\nteachings are not only without utility, but of itself it has nothing to\nteach. Separated from Christianity with its almost innumerable sects,\nfrom Muhammadanism with its numerous divisions, and separated also from\nevery other preached system, Theism is a will-o'-the-wisp, without\nreality. Apart from orthodoxy, Theism is the veriest dreamform, without\nsubstance or coherence.\n\nWhat does Christian Theism teach? That the first man, made perfect by\nthe all-powerful, all-wise, all-good God, was nevertheless imperfect,\nand by his imperfection brought misery into the world, where the\nall-good God must have intended misery should never come; that this God\nmade men to share this misery--men whose fault was their being what he\nmade them; that this God begets a son, who is nevertheless his\nunbegotten self, and that by belief in the birth of God's eternal son,\nand in the death of the undying who died as sacrifice to God's\nvengeance, men may escape the consequences of the first man's error.\nChristian Theism declares that belief alone can save man, and yet\nrecognises the fact that man's belief results from teaching, by\nestablishing missionary societies to spread the faith. Christian Theism\nteaches that God, though no respecter of persons, selected as his\nfavorite one nation in preference to all others; that man can do no good\nof himself or without God's aid, but yet that each man has a free will;\nthat God is all-powerful, but that few go to heaven, and the majority to\nhell; that all are to love God, who has predestined from eternity that\nby far the largest number of human beings are to be burning in hell for\never. Yet the advocates for Theism venture to upbraid those who argue\nagainst such a faith.\n\nEither Theism is true or false. If true, discussion must help to spread\nits influence; if false, the sooner it ceases to influence human conduct\nthe better for human kind. This Plea for Atheism is put forth as a\nchallenge to Theists to do battle for their cause, and in the hope that,\nthe strugglers being sincere, truth may give laurels to the victor and\nthe vanquished: laurels to the victor, in that he has upheld the truth;\nlaurels which should be even more welcome to the vanquished, whose\ndefeat crowns him with a truth he knew not of before.\n\nAPPENDIX\n\nA few years ago a Nonconformist minister invited me to debate the\nquestion, \"Is Atheism the True Doctrine of the Universe?\" and the\nfollowing was in substance my opening statement of the argument, which\nfor some reason, although many letters passed, was never replied to by\nmy reverend opponent.\n\n\"By Atheism I mean the affirmation of one existence, of which existence\nI know only mode; each mode being distinguished in thought by its\nqualities. This affirmation is a positive, not a negative, affirmation,\nand is properly describable as Atheism because it does not include in it\nany possibility of _Theos_. It is, being without God, distinctly an\nAtheistic affirmation. This Atheism affirms that the Atheist only knows\nqualities, and only knows these qualities as the characteristics of\nmodes. By 'existence' I mean the totality of phenomena and all that has\nbeen, is, or may be necessary for the happening of any and every\nphenomenon. By 'mode' I mean each cognised condition (phenomenon or\naggregation of phenomena). By 'quality' I mean that characteristic, or\neach of those characteristics, by which in thought I distinguish that\nwhich I think. The word 'universe' is with me an equivalent for\n'existence.'\n\n\"Either Atheism or Theism must be the true doctrine of the Universe. I\nassume here that no other theory is thinkable. Theism is either\nPantheism, Polytheism, or Monotheism. There is, I submit, no other\nconceivable category. Pantheism affirms one existence, but declares that\nsome qualities are infinite, e.g. that existence is intelligent. Atheism\nonly affirms qualities for phenomena. We know each phenomenon by its\nqualities; we know no qualities except as qualities of some phenomenon.\nBy infinite I mean illimitable. Phenomena are, of course, finite. By\nintelligent I mean able to think. Polytheism affirms several Theistic\nexistences--this affirmation being nearly self-contradictory--and also\nusually affirms at least one non-theistic existence. Monotheism affirms\nat least two existences: that is, the Theos and that which the Theos has\ncreated and rules. Atheism denies alike the reasonableness of\nPolytheism, Pantheism, and Monotheism. Any affirmation of more than one\nexistence is on the face of the affirmation an absolute\nself-contradiction, if infinity be pretended for either of the\nexistences affirmed. The word 'Theos' or 'God' has for me no meaning. I\nam obliged, therefore, to try to collect its meaning as expressed by\nTheists, who, however, do not seem to me to be either clear or agreed as\nto the words by which their Theism may be best expressed. For the\npurpose of this argument I take Monotheism to be the doctrine 'that the\nuniverse owes its existence and continuance in existence to the wisdom\nand will of a supreme, self-existent, eternal, infinite, omnipotent,\nomniscient, righteous, and benevolent personal being, who is distinct\nfrom and independent of what he has created.' By wisdom and will I mean\nthat which I should mean using the same words of any animal able to\nperceive, remember, reflect, judge, and determine, and active in that\nability or those abilities. By supreme I mean highest in any relation of\ncomparison. By self-existent I mean that the conception of which, if it\nbe conceivable, does not involve the conception of antecedent or\nconsequent. By eternal and infinite I mean illimitable in duration and\nextent. By 'omnipotent' I mean supreme in power over everything. By\nomniscient, knowing everything. By 'righteous and benevolent' I mean\nthat which the best educated opinion would mean when applying those\nwords to human beings. This doctrine of Monotheism appears to me to be\nflatly contradicted by the phenomena we know. It is inconsistent with\nthat observed uniformity of happening usually described as law of\nnature. By law of nature I mean observed order of event. The word\n'nature' is another equivalent for the word universe or existence. By\nuniformity of happening I mean that, given certain conditions, certain\nresults always ensue--vary the conditions, the results vary. I do not\nattack specially either the Polytheistic, Pantheistic, or Monotheistic\npresentments of Theism. To me any pretence of Theism seems impossible if\nMonism be conceded, and, therefore, at present, I rest content in\naffirming one existence. If Monism be true, and Atheism be Monism, then\nAtheism is necessarily the true theory of the universe. I submit that\n'there cannot be more than one ultimate explanation' of the universe.\nThat any 'tracing back to two or more' existences is illogical, and that\nas it is only by 'reaching unity' that we can have a reasonable\nconclusion, it is necessary 'that every form of Dualism should be\nrejected as a theory of the universe.' If every form of Dualism be\nrejected, Monism, i.e. Atheism, alone remains, and is therefore the true\nand only doctrine of the universe.\"\n\nSpeaking of the prevalence of what he describes as \"a form of\nagnosticism,\" the editor of the _Spectator_ writes: \"We think we see\nsigns of a disposition to declare that the great problem is insoluble,\nthat whatever rules, be it a mind or only a force, he or it does not\nintend the truth to be known, if there is a truth, and to go on, both in\naction and speculation, as if the problem had no existence. That is the\ncondition of mind, we know, of many of the cultivated who are not\nsceptics, nor doubters, nor inquirers, but who think they are as certain\nof their point as they are that the circle will not be squared. They\nare, they think, in presence of a recurring decimal, and they are not\ngoing to spend life in the effort to resolve it. If no God exists, they\nwill save their time; and if he does exist, he must have set up the\nimpenetrable wall. A distinct belief of that kind, not a vague, pulpy\nimpression, but a formulated belief, exists, we know, in the most\nunsuspected places, its holders not unfrequently professing\nChristianity, as at all events the best of the illusions; and it has\nsunk very far down in the ladder of society. We find it catch classes\nwhich have suddenly become aware that there is a serious doubt afloat,\nand have caught something of its extent and force, till they fancy they\nhave in the doubt a revelation as certainly true as they once thought\nthe old certainty.\" Surely an active, honest Atheism is to be preferred\nto the state of mind described in the latter part of the passage we have\njust quoted.\n\n\n\n\nA FEW WORDS ABOUT THE DEVIL\n\n\nDEALING with the Devil has been a perilous experiment. In 1790, an\nunfortunate named Andre Dubuisson, was confined in the Bastille, charged\nwith raising the Devil. In the reign of Charles I, Thomas Browne,\nyeoman, was indicted at Middlesex Sessions, for that he did \"wickedly,\ndiabolically, and feloniously make an agreement with an evil and impious\nspirit, that he, the same Thomas Browne, would within ten days after his\ndeath, give his soul to the same impious and evil spirit,\" for the\npurpose of having a clear income of L2,000 a year. Thomas was found not\nguilty. In 1682, three persons were hanged at Exeter, and in 1712, five\nothers were hanged at Northampton, for witchcraft and trafficking with\nthe Devil, who has been represented as a black-visaged,\nsulphurous-constitutioned individual, horned like an old goat, with\nsatyr-like legs, a tail of unpleasant length, and a reckless disposition\nto buy people presumably his without purchase. I intend to treat the\nsubject entirely from a Biblical point of view; the Christian Devil\nbeing a Bible institution. I say the Christian Devil, because other\nreligions also have their Devils, and it is well to prevent confusion. I\nfrankly admit that none of these religions have a Devil so devilish as\nthat of the Christian.\n\nI am unable to say certainly whether I am writing about a singular Devil\nor a plurality of Devils. In many texts \"Devils\" are mentioned\n(Leviticus xvii, 7; Mark i, 34, &c.) recognising a plurality; in others\n\"the Devil\" (Luke iv, 2), as if there was but one. Seven Devils went out\nof Mary called Magdalene (Luke viii, 2). The Rev. P. Hains, a Wigan\nchurch clergyman, tells me that where \"Devils\" are to be found in the\nGospels it is mistranslated and should be \"Demons\"--these being\napparently an inferior sort of Devils. Hershon (Talmudical Commentary on\nGenesis, p. 299), quotes from Rabbi Yochanan, \"There were three hundred\ndifferent species of male demons in Sichin, but what the female demon is\nlike I know not;\" and from Rava, \"If anyone wishes to see the demons\nthemselves let him burn and reduce to ashes the offspring of a\nfirst-born black cat; let him put a little of it in his eyes and he will\nsee them.\" Assuming that either there is one Devil, more than one, or\nless than one, and having thus cleared away mere numerical difficulties,\nwe will proceed to give the Devil his due. The word Satan occurs 1\nSamuel xxix, 4, and is there translated \"adversary,\" (Cahen) \"obstacle,\"\nsee also I Kings xi, 14. Satan appears either to have been a child of\nGod or a most intimate acquaintance of the family, for, on \"a day when\nthe children of God came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan\ncame also amongst them,\" (Job I, 6) and no surprise or disapprobation is\nmanifested at his presence. Some trace in this the Persian demonology\nwhere the good spirits surround Ormuzd and where Ahriman is the spirit\nof evil. The conversation in the Book of Job between God and the Devil\nhas a value proportioned to the rarity of the scene and to the high\ncharacters of the personages concerned, despite the infidel criticism of\nMartin Luther, who condemns the Book of Job as \"a sheer _argumentum\nfabula_.\" A Christian ought to be surprised to find \"God omniscient\"\nputting to Satan the query: Whence comest thou? for he cannot suppose\nGod, the all-wise, ignorant upon the subject. Satan's reply: \"From going\nto and fro in the earth, and from going up and down it,\" increases our\nsurprise and augments our astonishment. The true believer should be\nastonished to find from his Bible that Satan could have gone to and fro\nin the earth, and walked up and down it, and yet not have met God, if\nomnipresent, at least occasionally, during his journeying. It is not\neasy to conceive omnipresence absent, even temporarily, from every spot\nwhere the Devil promenaded. The Lord makes no comment on Satan's reply,\nbut says: \"Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like\nhim in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God and\nescheweth evil?\" It seems extraordinary that God should wish to have the\nDevil's judgment on the only good man then living: the more\nextraordinary, as God, the all-wise, knew Satan's opinion without asking\nit, and God, the immutable, would not be influenced by the expression of\nthe Devil's views. Satan's answer is: \"Doth Job fear God for naught?\nHast thou not made an hedge about him, and about all that he hath on\nevery side? Thou hast blest the work of his hand, and his substance is\nincreased in the land; but put forth thine hand now and touch all that\nhe hath, and he will curse thee to thy face.\" God's reply to this\naudacious declaration is: \"Behold, all that he hath is in thy power;\nonly upon himself put not forth thine hand.\" And this was Job's reward\nfor being a perfect and upright man, one that feared God and eschewed\nevil. He was not actually sent to the Devil, but to the Devil was given\npower over all that he had. Job lost all without repining, sons,\ndaughters, oxen, asses, camels, and sheep, all destroyed, and yet \"Job\nsinned not.\" Divines urge that this is a beautiful picture of patience\nand contentment under wrong and misfortune. But it is neither good to\nsubmit patiently to wrong, nor to rest contented under misfortune. It is\nbetter to resist wrong; wiser to carefully investigate the causes of\nwrong and misfortune, with a view to their removal. Contentment under\nwrong is a crime; voluntary submission under oppression is no virtue.\n\n\"Again, there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves\nbefore the Lord [as if God's children could ever be absent from him],\nand Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. And\nthe Lord [again] said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan\nanswered the Lord and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from\nwalking up and down in it. And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou\nconsidered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth? a\nperfect and upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? and\nstill he holdeth fast his integrity, ALTHOUGH THOU MOVEDST ME AGAINST\nHIM TO DESTROY HIM WITHOUT CAUSE.\" Can God be moved against a man to\ndestroy him without a cause? If so, God is neither immutable nor\nall-wise. Yet the Bible puts into God's mouth the terrible admission\nthat the Devil had moved God against Job to destroy him without cause.\nIf true, it destroys alike God's goodness and his wisdom.\n\nBut Satan answered the Lord and said: \"Skin for skin, yea, all that a\nman hath will he give for his life; put forth thine hand now and touch\nhis bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face.\"\n\nDoes the Lord now drive the Devil from his presence? Is there any\nexpression of wrath or indignation against this tempter? \"The Lord said\nunto Satan: Behold, he is in thine hand, but save his life.\" And Job,\nbeing better than everybody else, finds himself smitten in consequence\nwith sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. The ways of\nthe Lord are not as our ways, or this would seem the reverse of an\nencouragement to virtue.\n\nIn the account of the numbering by David, in one place \"God,\" and in\nanother \"Satan,\" occurs (1 Chron. xxi,1; 2 Sam. xxiv, 1), and to each\nthe same act of \"moving\" or \"provoking\" David to number his people is\nattributed. There may be in this more harmony than ordinary men\nrecognise, for one erudite Bible commentator tells us, speaking of the\nHebrew word Azazel: \"This terrible and venerable name of God, through\nthe pens of Biblical glossers, has been _a devil, a mountain, a\nwilderness, and a he-goat._\"[13] Well may incomprehensibility be an\nattribute of deity when, even to holy and reverend fathers, God has been\nsometimes undistinguishable from a he-goat or a Devil. Moncure D. Conway\nwrites: \"There can be little question that the Hebrews, from whom the\nCalvinist inherited his deity, had no Devil in their mythology, because\nthe jealous and vindictive Jehovah was quite equal to any work of that\nkind--as the hardening of Pharaoh's heart, bringing plagues upon the\nland, or deceiving a prophet and then destroying him for his false\nprophecies.\"[14]\n\n [13] G.R. Gliddon's extract from Land's \"Sacra Scritura,\" chap, iii,\n      sec. 1. \"Demonology and Devil-lore,\" vol. i, p. 11.\n\n [14] \"Christian Records,\" by the Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 144.\n\nGod is a spirit. Jesus is God. Jesus was led up of the Spirit to be\ntempted of the Devil. All these propositions are equally credible.\n\nOn the temptation of Jesus by the Devil, the Rev. Dr. Giles writes:\n\"That the Devil should appear personally _to the Son of God is certainly\nnot more wonderful_ than that he should, in a more remote age, have\nappeared _among_ the Sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to\ntempt and torment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus,\nbodily and literally, through the air--first to the top of a high\nmountain, and then to the topmost pinnacle of the temple--is wholly\ninadmissible; it is an insult to our understanding.\"[15] It is pleasant\nto find clergymen zealously repudiating their own creeds.\n\n [15] \"Pilgrim's Progress from Methodism to Christianity.\"\n\nI am not prepared to speak strongly as to the color of the Devil. White\nmen paint him black; black men paint him white. He can scarcely be\ncolorless, as otherwise the Evangelists would have labored under\nconsiderable difficulties in witnessing the casting out of the Devil\nfrom the man in the synagogue (Luke iv, 35, 36).This Devil is described\nas an unclean Devil. The Devils were subject to the 70 disciples whom\nJesus appointed to preach (Luke x, 17), and they are not unbelievers:\none text tells us that they believe and tremble (James ii, 19). It is a\nfact of some poor Devils that the more they believe the more they\ntremble. According to another text the Devil goeth about like a roaring\nlion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter v, 8), though the Devil's\n\"doctrines\" presumably include vegetarianism (1 Timothy iv, 1, 3). I am\nnot sure what drinks devils incline to, though it is distinguished from\nthe wine of the communion (1 Corinthians x, 21). Devils should be a sort\nof eternal salamanders, for there is everlasting fire prepared for the\nDevil and his angels (Matt. xxv, 41); and there is a lake of brimstone\nand fire, into which the Devil was cast (Rev. xx, 10). The Devil has, at\nleast upon one occasion, figured as a controversialist. For we learn\nthat he disputed with the arch-angel Michael, contending about the body\nof Moses (Jude 9); in these degenerate days of personality in debate, it\nis pleasant to know that the religious champion was very civil towards\nhis Satanic opponent. The Devil was imprisoned for 1,000 years in a\nbottomless pit (Rev. xx, 2). If a pit had no bottom, it seems but little\nconfinement to shut the top. But, with faith and prayer even a good\nfoundation may be obtained for a bottomless pit. The writer of\nRevelation, adopting the view of some Hebrew writers, speaks of \"the\ndragon, that old serpent which is the devil and Satan\" and following\nthis, it is urged that the Devil was the serpent of Genesis--that is,\nthat it was really Satan who, in this guise, tempted Eve. There is this\ndifficulty in the matter--the Devil is a liar (John viii, 44); but in\nthe interview with Eve the serpent seems to have confined himself to the\nstrict truth (Gen. iii, 4, 5, 22). There is, in fact, no point of\nresemblance--no horns, no hoof, nothing except a tail.\n\nKalisch notes that \"the Egyptians represented the eternal spirit Kneph,\nthe author of all good, under the mythic form\" of the serpent, but they\nemployed the same symbol \"for Typhon, the author of all moral and\nphysical evil, and in the Egyptian symbolical alphabet, the serpent\nrepresents subtlety and cunning, lust, and sensual pleasure.\"\n\nThe Old Testament speaks a little of the Devils, sometimes of Satan, but\nnever of \"The Devil;\" yet Matthew ushers him in, in the temptation\nscene, without introduction, and as if he were an old acquaintance. I do\nnot remember reading in the Old Testament, anything about the lake of\nbrimstone and fire. Although Malachi iv, 1, speaks of the day \"that\nshall burn as an oven when the wicked shall be burned up.\" This feature\nof faith was reserved for the warmth of Christian love to develop from\nsome of the Talmudical writers. The Rev. C. Boutell in his Bible\ndictionary says, that, \"it is at the least unfortunate that the word\n'hell' should have been used as if the translation of the Hebrew\n'sheol.'\" Zechariah, in a vision, saw \"Joshua, the High Priest, standing\nbefore the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to\nresist him\" (Zach-ariah iii, 1). Why the Devil wanted to resist Joshua\nis not clear; but, as Joshua's garments were in a very filthy state, it\nmay be that he was preaching to the priest the virtues of cleanliness.\nJesus said that one of the twelve disciples was a Devil (John vi, 70).\nYou are told to resist the devil and he will flee from you (James iv,\n7). If this be true, he is a cowardly Devil, and thus does not agree\nquite with Milton's picture of his grand defiance, almost heroism. But\nthen Milton was a poet, and true religion has but little poetry in it.\n\nJeroboam, one of the Jewish monarchs, ordained priests for the devils (2\nChron. ix, 15). In the time of Jesus, Satan must, when not in the body\nof some mad, deaf, dumb, blind, or paralytic person, have been\noccasionally in heaven; for Jesus, on one occasion, told his disciples\nthat he saw Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven (Luke x, 18). Jesus\ntold Simon Peter that Satan desired to have him, that he might sift him\nas wheat (Luke xxii, 31); perhaps Jesus was chafing his disciple. Paul,\nthe apostle, seems to have looked on the Devil much as some bigots look\non the police, for Paul delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan,\nthat they might learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy i, 20).\n\nRevivalists are much indebted for their evanescent successes to hell and\nthe Devil. Thomas English, a fair specimen of those very noisy and\nactive preachers who do so much in promoting revivals, spoke of\n\"dwelling with devouring fire, bearing everlasting burning, roasting on\nthe Devil's spit, broiling on his gridiron, being pitched about with his\nfork, drinking the liquid fire, breathing the brimstone fumes, drowning\nin a red-hot sea, lying on fiery beds.\"[16] The vulgar tirades of\nReginald Radcliffe, Richard Weaver, and C. H. Spurgeon, will serve to\nevidence that the above quotation is no exaggeration. In London, before\ncrowded audiences, Mr. Weaver, without originality, and with only the\nmerit of copied coarseness, has called upon the Lord to \"shake the\nungodly for five minutes over the mouth of hell.\" Mr. Spurgeon has drawn\npictures of hell which, if true and revealed to him by God, would be\nmost disgustingly frightful, and which being but the creation of his own\nmorbid fancies, induce a feeling of contempt as well as disgust for the\nteacher, who uses such horrible descriptions to affright his weaker\nhearers.\n\n [16] Sharpe's \"History of Egypt,\" p. 196.\n\nCalmet says that \"By collecting all the passages where Satan (or the\nDevil) is mentioned, it may be observed, that he fell from Heaven, with\nall his company; that God cast him down from thence for the punishment\nof his pride; and by his envy and malice, death, and all other evils\ncame into the world; that by the permission of God he exercises a sort\nof government in the world over his subordinates, over apostate angels\nlike himself; that God makes use of him to prove good men, and to\nchastise bad ones; that he is a lying spirit in the mouth of false\nprophets, seducers, and heretics; that it is he, or some of his, that\ntorment, obsess, or possess men, that inspire them with evil designs, as\ndid _David_, when he suggested to him to number his people, and to\n_Judas_ to betray _Jesus Christ_, and to Ananias and Sapphira to conceal\nthe price of their field. That he roves about full of rage, like a\nroaring lion, to tempt, to betray, to destroy, and to involve us in\nguilt and wickedness.\n\n\"That his power and malice are restricted within certain limits, and\ncontrolled by the will of God; that he sometimes appears to men to\nseduce them; that he can transform himself into an angel of light; that\nhe sometimes assumes the form of a spectre, as he appeared to the\nEgyptians while they were involved in darkness in the days of Moses;\nthat he creates several diseases to men; that he chiefly presides over\ndeath, and bears aways the souls of the wicked to hell; that at present\nhe is confined to Hell, as in a prison, but that he will be unbound and\nset at liberty in the year of _Anti-Christ_; that hell-fire is prepared\nfor him and his; that he is to be judged at the last day. But I cannot\nperceive very clearly from scripture, that he torments the souls of the\nwicked in hell, as we generally believe.\"\n\nIn his interesting volume on Elizabethan demonology Mr. Spalding urges\nthat \"the empire of the supernatural must obviously be most extended\nwhere civilization is the least advanced,\" and he gives three reasons\nfor the belief in devils--1. \"The apparent incapacity of the majority of\nmankind to accept a purely monotheistic creed.\" 2. \"The division of\nspirits into hostile camps, good and evil.\" 3. \"The tendency of all\ntheological systems to absorb into themselves the deities extraneous to\nthemselves, not as gods, but as inferior or even evil spirits.\"\n\nEven if I were a theist I should refuse to see in God a being omniscient\nand omnipotent, who puts us into this world without our volition, leaves\nus to struggle through it unequally pitted against an almost omnipotent\nand super-subtle Devil; and who, if we fail, finally drops us out of\nthis world into Hell-fire, where a legion of inferior devils finds\nconstant and never-ending employment in inventing fresh tortures for us;\nour crime being, that we have not succeeded where success was rendered\nimpossible. No high thinkings are developed by the doctrine of Devils\nand damnation. If a potent faith, it degrades to imbecility alike the\nteacher and the taught, by its abhorrent mercilessness; and if mere form\ninstead of a faith, then is the Devil doctrine a misleading sham.\n\n\n\n\nWERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS?\n\n\nTHIS question, Were Adam and Eve our first parents? is indeed one of\nvital importance. A negative answer is a denial of the whole Christian\nscheme. The Christian theory is that Adam, the common father of the\nwhole human race, sinned, and by his sin dragged down all his posterity\nto a state from which redemption was needed, and that Jesus is, and was,\nthe Redeemer, by whom all mankind are, and were, saved from the\nconsequences of the fall of Adam. If Adam therefore be not the first\nman, if it is not to Adam the various races of mankind are indebted for\ntheir origin, then the whole hypothesis of fall and redemption fails.\n\nIt is impossible in the space of this pamphlet to give any statement and\nanalysis of the various hypotheses as to the origin of the human race;\nthat I have done at some length in my volume on \"Genesis: its Authorship\nand Authenticity.\" Personally I incline to favor the doctrine of a\nplurality of sources for the various types of the human race. That\nwherever the conditions for life have been, there also has been the\ndegree of life resultant on those conditions. My purpose here is not to\ndemonstrate the correctness of my own thinking, but rather to illustrate\nthe incorrectness of the Genesaical teaching. Were Adam and Eve our\nfirst parents? On the one hand, an affirmative answer can be obtained\nfrom the Bible, which, though in Genesis v, 2, using Adam as a\nrace-name, specifically asserts (ii, 22) Adam and Eve to be the first\nman and woman made by God, and in the authorised version fixes the date\nof their making about 6,000 years, little more or less, from the present\ntime. On the other hand, science emphatically declares man to have\nexisted on the earth for a far more extended period, affirms that as far\nas we can trace man historically, we find him in isolated groups,\ndiverse in type, till we lose him in the ante-historic period; and with\nnearly equal distinctness denies that the various existing races find\ntheir common parentage in one pair. It is only on the first point that I\nattack the Bible chronology of man's existence. I am aware that\ncalculations based upon the authorised version of the Old Testament\nScriptures are open to objection, and that while from the Hebrew 1,656\nyears represent the period from Adam to the Deluge generally\nacknowledged, the Samaritan Pentateuch only yields for the same period\n1,307 years, while the Septuagint version furnishes 2,242 years; but a\nmost erudite Egyptologist, states a fatal objection to the Septuagint\nchronology--i.e., that it makes Methuselah outlive the Flood.[17] The\nDeluge occurred, according to the Septuagint, in the year of the world\n2,242, and by adding up the generations previous to his (Methuselah's)\nbirth--Adam, 230; Seth, 205; Enos, 190; Cainan, 170; Mahaleel, 165;\nJared, 162; Enoch, 165; = 1,287--Methuselah was born in the year of the\nworld 1287. He lived 969 years, and therefore died in 2256. But this is\nfourteen years after the Deluge.\n\n [17] \"Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and Harmony of the Old\n      Testament.\"\n\nThe Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, who wrote about 1644, fixes the month of\ncreation at September, 5,572 years preceding the date of his book, and\nsays that Adam was expelled from Eden on the day on which he was\ncreated.[18] In my volume on Genesis (pp. 29-36) the reader will find\nthe chronology of Genesis carefully examined. For our immediate purpose\nwe will take the ordinary English Bible, which gives the following\nresult: From Adam to Abraham (Genesis v and xi), 2,008; Abraham to Isaac\n(Genesis xxi, 5), 100; Isaac to Jacob (Genesis xxv, 26), 60; Jacob going\ninto Egypt (Genesis xlvii, 9), 130; Sojourn in Egypt (Exodus xii, 41),\n430; Duration of Moses' leadership (Exodus vii, 7; xxxi, 2), 40; thence\nto David, about 400; from David to Captivity, 14 generations (27), about\n22 reigns, 473; Captivity to Jesus, 14 generations, about 5,934 = 234;\nless disputed 230 years of sojourn in Egypt, 230 = 4,004.\n\n [18] Munks' \"Palestine,\" p.231\n\nThese dates follow the Bible statement, and there is no portion of the\northodox text, except the period of the Judges, which will admit any\nconsiderable extension of the ordinary Oxford chronology.\n\nThe Book of Judges is not a book of history. Everything in it is\nrecounted without chronological order. It will suffice to say that the\ncyphers which we find in the Book of Judges and in the First Book of\nSamuel yield us, from the death of Joshua to the commencement of the\nreign of Saul, the sum-total of 500 years, which would make, since the\nexodus from Egypt, 565 years; whereas the First Book of Kings counts but\n480 years, from the going out of Egypt down to the foundation of the\ntemple under Solomon. According to this we must suppose that several of\nthe judges governed simultaneously.(19)\n\nAlfred Maury, in his profound essay on the classification of tongues,\ntraces back some of the ancient Greek mythologies to a Sanscrit source.\nHe has the following remark, worthy of earnest attention: \"The God of\nheaven, or the sky, is called by the Greek _Zeus Pater_; and let us have\nnotice that the pronunciation of Z resembles very much that of D,\ninasmuch as the word Zeus becomes in the genitive (Dios). The Latins\ntermed the same God, _Dies-piter_, or Jupiter. Now in the Veda, the God\nof heaven is called Dyashpitai.\" What is this but the original of our\nown Christian God the father, the _Jeue_ pater of the Old Testament? The\nHebrew Records, whether or not God-inspired, are certainly not the most\nantique. Neither is it true that the Hebrew mythology is the most\nancient, nor the Hebrew language the most primitive; on the contrary,\nthe mythology is clearly derived, and the language in a secondary or\ntertiary state.\n\nThe word Adam is first written as a proper name in Genesis ii, 19, but\nthe word written Adam is and this is found in Genesis i, 26, and in\nseveral other verses. In i, 27, the word is used as if it meant not one\nman only, but \"male and female;\" indeed v. 2, says, \"male and female\ncreated he them and blessed them and called their name Adam.\" Genesis\nii, 18, treats the man as alone, and 19 his name as Adam.\n\nWhat is the value of this Book of Genesis, the sole authority for the\nhypothesis that Adam and Eve, about 6,000 years ago, were the sole\nfounders of the peoples now living on the face of the earth? Written we\nknow not by whom, we know not when, and we know not in what language.\nEusebius, Chrysostom, and Clemens Alexandrinus alike agree that the name\nof Moses should not stand at the head of Genesis as the author of the\nbook. Origen did not hesitate to declare the contents of the first and\nsecond chapters of Genesis to be purely figurative. Our translation of\nit has been severely criticised by the learned and pious Bellamy, and by\nthe more learned and less pious Sir William Drummond. It has been\namended and revised in our own day. Errors almost innumerable have been\npointed out, the correctness of the Hebrew text itself questioned, and\nyet this book is claimed as an unerring guide to the students of\nethnology. They may do anything, everything, except stray out of the\nbeaten track. We have, on the one hand, an anonymous book, which, for\nthe development of the diversities of the human family, does not even\ntake us back so much as 6,000 years. At least 1,600 years must be\ndeducted for the alleged Noachian deluge, when the world's inhabitants\nwere again reduced to one family, one race, one type. On the other hand,\nwe have now existing Esquimaux men, of the Arctic realm--Chinamen, of\nthe Asiatic realm--Englishmen, of the European realm--Sahara negroes, of\nthe African realm--Fuegians, of the American realm--New Zealanders, of\nthe Polynesian realm--the Malay, representative of the realm which bears\nhis name--the Tasmanian, of the Australian realm--with other families of\neach realm, too numerous for mention here; dark and fair; black-skinned\nand 'white-skinned; woolly-haired and straight-haired; low forehead,\nhigh forehead; Hottentot limb, Negro limb, Caucasian limb. Do all these\ndifferent and differing structures and colors trace their origin to one\npair? To Adam and Eve, or rather to Noah and his family? Or are they\n(the various races) indigenous to their native soils, and climates? And\nare these various types naturally resultant, with all their differences,\nfrom the differing conditions for life persistent to and consistent with\nthem?\n\nThe question is really this--Have the different races of man all found\ntheir common parent in Noah, about 4,300 years ago? Assuming the unity\nof the races or species of men now existing, there are but three\nsuppositions on which the diversity now seen can be accounted for:--\n\n\"1st. A miracle or direct act of the Almighty, in changing one type into\nanother.\n\n\"2nd. The gradual action of physical causes, such as climate, food, mode\nof life, etc.\n\n\"3rd. Congenital or accidental varieties.\"[20]\n\n [20] \"Types of Mankind,\" Dr. Nott, p. 57.\n\nWe may fairly dismiss entirely the question of miracle. Such a miracle\nis nowhere recorded in the Bible, and it lies upon anyone hardy enough\nto assert that the present diversity has a miraculous origin, to show\nsome kind of reasons for his faith, some kind of evidence to warrant our\nconviction. Until this is done we need not dwell on the first\nhypothesis.\n\nOf the durability of type under its own life conditions we have\noverwhelming proof in the statue of an ancient Egyptian scribe, taken\nfrom a tomb of the fifth dynasty, 5,000 years old, and precisely\ncorresponding to the Fellah of the present day.[21] The sand had\npreserved the color of the statuette, which, from its portraitlike\nbeauty, marks a long era of art-progress preceding its production. It\nantedates the orthodox era of the Flood, carries us back to a time when,\nif the Bible were true, Adam was yet alive, and still we find before it\nkings reigning and ruling in mighty Egypt. Can the reader wonder that\nthese facts are held to impeach the orthodox faith?\n\n [21]   M. Pulzsky on Iconography--\"Indigenous Races,\" p. 111.\n\nOn the second point Dr. Nott writes: \"It is a commonly received error\nthat the influence of a hot climate is gradually exerted on successive\ngenerations, until one species of mankind is completely changed into\nanother This idea is proven to be false.... A sunburnt cheek is never\nhanded down to succeeding generations. The exposed parts of the body are\nalone tanned by the sun, and the children of the white-skinned Europeans\nin New Orleans, Mobile, and the West Indies are born as fair as their\nancestors, and would remain so if carried back to a colder climate.[22]\nPure negroes and negresses, transported from Central Africa to England,\nand marrying among themselves, would never acquire the characteristics\nof the Caucasian races; nor would pure Englishmen and Englishwomen,\nemigrating to Central Africa, and in like manner intermarrying, ever\nbecome negroes or negresses. The fact is, that while you don't bleach\nthe color out of the darkskinned African by placing him in London, you\nbleach the life out of him; and vice versa with the Englishman.[23] For\na long time there has been ascribed to man the faculty of adapting\nhimself to every climate. The following facts will show the ascription a\nmost erroneous one, though human adaptability is very great: \"In Egypt\nthe austral negroes are, and the Caucasian Memlooks were, unable to\nraise up even a third generation; in Corsica French families vanish\nbeneath Italian summers. Where are the descendants of the Romans, the\nVandals, or the Greeks in Africa? In Modern Arabia, after Mahomed Ali\nhad got clear of the Morea War, 18,000 Arnaots (Albanians) were soon\nreduced to some 400 men. At Gibraltar, in 1817, a negro regiment was\nalmost annihilated by consumption. In 1814, during the three weeks on\nthe Niger, 130 Europeans out of 145 caught African fever, and 40 died;\nout of 158 negro sailors only eleven were affected, and not one died. In\n1809 the British expedition to Welchereen failed in the Netherlands\nthrough marsh fever. About the same time, in St. Domingo, about 15,000\nFrench soldiers died from malaria. Of 30,000 Frenchmen, only 8,000\nsurvived exposure to that Antillian island; while the Dominicanised\nAfrican negro, Toussaint l'Overture, retransported to Europe, was\nperishing from the chill of his prison in France.\"\n\n [22] \"Types of Mankind,\" p. 58.\n\n [23] \"Indigenous Races of the Earth,\" p. 458. The alleged discovery of\n      whiteskinned negroes in Western Africa does not affect this\n      question; it is not only to the color of the skin but also to the\n      general negro characteristics that the above remarks apply.\n\nOn the third point, again quoting Dr. Nott:--\n\n\"The only argument left, then, is that of congenital varieties or\npeculiarities, which are said to spring up and be transmitted from\nparent to child, so as to form new races. Let us pause for a moment to\nillustrate this fanciful idea. The negroes of Africa, for example, are\nadmitted not to be offsets from some other race which have been\ngradually blackened and changed in a moral and physical type by the\naction of climate; but it is asserted that 'once, in the flight of ages'\nsome genuine little negro, or rather many such, were born of Caucasian,\nMongol, or other light-skinned parents, and then have turned about and\nchanged the type of the inhabitants of a whole continent. So in America,\nthe countless aborigines found on this continent, who we have reason to\nbelieve were building mounds before the time of Abraham, are the\noffspring of a race changed by accidental or congenital varieties. Thus,\ntoo, old China, India, Australia, Oceana, etc., all owe their types,\nphysical and mental, to congenital and accidental varieties, and are\ndescended from Adam and Eve! Can human credulity go farther, or human\ningenuity invent any argument more absurd?\"[24]\n\n [24] Nott and Gliddon, \"Indigenous Races,\" p. 587.\n\nBut even supposing these objections to the second and third suppositions\nset aside, there are two other propositions which, if affirmed, as I\nbelieve they may be, entirely overthrow the orthodox assertion: \"That\nAdam and Eve, six thousand years ago, were the first pair; and that all\ndiversities now existing must find their common source in Noah--less\nthan four thousand three hundred years from the present time.\" These two\nare as follows:\n\n1. That man may be traced back on the earth long prior to the alleged\nAdamic era.\n\n2. That there are diversities traceable as existing amongst the human\nrace four thousand five hundred years ago, as marked as in the present\nday.\n\nTo illustrate the position that man may be traced back to a period long\nprior to the Adamic era, we refer our readers to the chronology of the\nlate Baron Bunsen, who, while allowing about\n\n22,000 years for man's existence on earth, fixes the following dates\nafter a patient examination of the Nilotic antiquities:\n\n    Egyptians under a republican form................. 10,000 B.C.\n\n    Ascension of Bytis, the Theban, 1st Priest King.... 9,085\n\n    Elective Kings in Egypt............................ 7,230\n\n    Hereditary Kings in Upper and Lower Egypt,\n    a double empire form............................... 5,143\n\nThe assertion of such an antiquity for Egypt is no modern hypothesis.\nPlato puts language into the mouth of an Egyptian, first claiming in\nthat day an antecedent of 10,000 years for painting and sculpture in\nEgypt. This has long been regarded as fabulous, because it was contrary\nto the Hebrew chronology.\n\nThere are few who now pretend that the whole _creation_ (?) took place\n6,000 years ago, although, if it be true that God made all in six days,\nand man on the sixth, then the universe would only be more ancient than\nAdam by some five days. To state the age of the earth at 6,000 years is\nsimply preposterous when it is estimated that it would require about\n4,000,000 of years for the formation of the fossiliferous rocks alone,\nand 15,000,000 of years have been stated as a moderate estimate for the\nantiquity of our globe. The deltas of the great rivers of Hindustan\nafford corroboration as to man's antiquity. In Egypt the delta of the\nNile, formed by immense quantities of sedimentary matter, which in like\nmanner is still carried down and deposited, has not perceptibly\nincreased during the last 3,000 years. \"In the days of the earliest\nPharaohs, the delta, as it now exists, was covered with ancient cities\nand filled with a dense population, whose civilisation must have\nrequired a period going back far beyond any date that has yet been\nassigned to the deluge of Noah, or even to the creation of the\nworld.\"[25]\n\n [25] Gliddon's \"Types of Mankind,\" p. 335.\n\nFrom borings which have been made at New Orleans to the depth of 600\nfeet, from excavations for public works, and from examinations in parts\nof Louisiana, where the range between high and low water is much greater\nthan it is at New Orleans, no less than ten distinct cypress forests,\ndivided from each other by eras of aquatic plants, etc., have been\ntraced, arranged vertically above each other, and from these and other\ndata it is estimated by Dr. Benet Dowler that the age of the delta is at\nleast about 158,000 years, and in the excavations above referred to,\nhuman remains, have been found below the further forest level, making it\nappear that the human race existed in the delta of the Mississippi more\nthan 57,000 years ago.[26]\n\n [26] \"Types,\" p. 336 to 369.\n\nIt is further urged by the same competent writer that human bones\ndiscovered on the coast of Brazil, near Santas, and on the borders of a\nlake called Lagoa Santa, by Captain Elliott and Dr. Lund, thoroughly\nincorporated with a very hard breccia, every one in a fossil state,\ndemonstrate that aboriginal man in America antedates the Mississippi\nalluvia, and that he can even boast a geological antiquity, because\nnumerous species of animals have become extinct since American\nhumanity's first appearance.[27]\n\n [27] \"Types,\" pages 350 and 357.\n\nWith reference to the possibility of tracing back the diversities of the\nhuman race to an antediluvian date, it is amply sufficient to point on\nthe one side to the remains of the American Indian disentombed from the\nMississippi forests, and on the other to the Egyptian monuments, tombs,\npyramids, and stuccoes, revealing to us Caucasian men and Negro men,\ntheir diversities as marked as in the present day. Sir William Jones in\nhis day, claimed for Sanscrit literature a vast antiquity, and asserted\nthe existence of the religions of Egypt, Greece, India, and Italy, prior\nto the Mosaic Era. So far as Egypt is concerned the researches of\nLepsius, Bunsen, Champollion, Lenormant, Gliddon, and others have fully\nverified the position of the learned president of the Asiatic Society.\nIn \"Genesis: its Authorship and Authenticity,\" pp. 88-21, I have\ncollected other testimony on this point.\n\nWe have Egyptian statues of the third dynasty, going back far beyond the\n4,300 years which would give the orthodox era of the deluge, and taking\nus over the 4,500 years fixed by our second proposition. The fourth\ndynasty is rich in pyramids, tombs, and statues; and according to\nLepsius, this dynasty commenced 3,426 B.C., or about 5,287 years from\nthe present date.\n\nWorks on the orthodox side constantly assume that the long chronologists\nmust be in error, because their views do not coincide with orthodox\nteachings. Orthodox authors treat their heterodox brethren as unworthy\nof credit, because of their heterodoxy. One writer asserts,[28] that the\nearliest reference to Negro tribes is in the era of the 12th dynasty.\nSupposing for a moment this to be correct, what even then will be the\nstate of the argument? The 12th dynasty, according to Lepsius ends about\n4,000 years ago. The orthodox chronology fixes the deluge about 300\nyears earlier. Will any sane man argue that there was sufficient lapse\nof time in three centuries for the development of Caucasian and Negro\nman from one family?\n\n [28] \"Archaia,\" p. 406.\n\nWe trace back the various types of man now known, not to one centre, not\nto one country, not to one family, not to one pair, but we trace them to\ndifferent centres, to distinct countries, to separate families, probably\nto many pairs. Wherever the conditions for life are found, there are\nliving beings also. The conditions of climate, soil, etc., of Central\nAfrica differ from those of Europe. The indigenous races of Central\nAfrica differ from those of Europe. Geology has helped us very little as\nto the prehistoric types of man, but its aid has nevertheless been\nsufficient to far outdate the one man Adam of 6,000 years ago.\n\nI challenge the ordinary orthodox assertion of Adamic unity of origin\naccompanied as it is by threats of pains and penalties if rejected; I am\nyet ready to examine it, if it can be presented to me associated with\nfacts, and divested of those future hell-fire torments and present\nsocietarian persecutions which now form its chief, if not sole,\nsupports.\n\nThe rejection of the Bible account of the peopling of the world involves\nalso the rejection of the entire scheme of Christianity. According to\nthe orthodox rendering of both New and Old Testament teaching, all men\nare involved in the curse which followed Adam's sin. But if the account\nof the Fall be mythical, not historical; if Adam and Eve--supposing them\nto have ever existed--were preceded on the earth by many nations and\nempires, what becomes of the doctrine that Jesus came to redeem mankind\nfrom a sin committed by one who was not the common father of all\nhumanity?\n\nReject Adam, and you cannot accept Jesus. Refuse to believe Genesis, and\nyou cannot give credence to Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, and Paul. The Old\nand New Testaments are so connected together, that to dissolve the union\nis to destroy the system. The account of the Creation and Fall of Man is\nthe foundation-stone of the Christian Church--if this stone be rotten,\nthe superstructure cannot be stable.\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF ABRAHAM\n\n\nMOST undoubtedly father Abraham is a personage whose history should\ncommand attention, if only because he figures as the founder of the\nJewish race--a race which, having been promised protection and favor by\nDeity, appear in the large majority of cases to have experienced little\nelse besides the sufferance of misfortune and misery themselves, or its\ninfliction upon others. Men are taught to believe that God, following\nout a solemn covenant made with Abraham, suspended the course of nature\nto aggrandise the Jews; that he promised always to bless and favor them\nif they adhered to his worship and obeyed the priests. The promised\nblessings were usually: political authority, individual happiness and\nsexual power, long life, and great wealth; the threatened curses for\nidolatry or disobedience: disease, loss of property and children,\nmutilation, death. Amongst the blessings: the right to kill, plunder,\nand ravish their enemies, with protection, whilst pious, against any\nsubjection to retaliatory measures. And all this because they were\nAbraham's children!\n\nAbraham is especially an important personage to the orthodox\nChurch-going Christian. Without Abraham, no Jesus, no Christianity, no\nChurch of England, no bishops, no tithes, no church-rates. But for\nAbraham, England would have lost all these blessings. Abraham was the\ngreat-grandfather of Judah, the head of the tribe to which God's\nmother's husband, Joseph, belonged.\n\nIn gathering materials for a short biographical sketch, we are at once\ncomforted and dismayed by the fact that the only reliable account of\nAbraham's career is that furnished by the book of Genesis, supplemented\nby a few brief references in other parts of the Bible, and that, outside\n\"God's perfect and infallible revelation to man,\" there is no reliable\naccount of Abraham's existence at all. We are comforted by the thought\nthat, despite the new edition of the \"Encyclopaedia Britannica,\" Genesis\nis unquestioned by the faithful, and is at present protected by Church\nand State against heretic assaults; but we are dismayed when we think\nthat, if Infidelity, encouraged by Colenso, Kalisch, Professor Robertson\nSmith, and Professor Wellhausen, upsets Genesis, Abraham will have\nlittle historical support. The Talmudical notices of Abraham are too\nwonderful for irreverent criticism. Some philologists have asserted that\nBrama and Abraham are alike corruptions of Abba Rama, or Abrama, and\nthat Sarah is identical with Sarasvati. Abram, is a Chaldean compound,\nmeaning father of the elevated, or exalted father. [--Hebrew--] is a\ncompound of Chaldee and Arabic, signifying father of a multitude. In\npart v. of his work, Colenso mentions that Adonis was formerly\nidentified with Abram, \"high father,\" Adonis being the personified sun.\n\nLeaving incomprehensible problems in philology for the ordinary\nauthorised version of our Bibles, we find that Abraham was the son of\nTerah. The Talmud[29] says that Abraham's mother was Amathlai, the\ndaughter of Karnebo (Bava Bathra, fol. 1, col. 1.) The text does not\nexpressly state where Abraham was born, and I cannot therefore describe\nhis birth-place with that accuracy of detail which a true believer might\ndesire, but he \"dwelt in old time on the other side of the flood\"\n(Joshua xxiv, 2 and 3). Abraham was born when Terah, his father, was\nseventy years of age; and, according to Genesis, Terah and his family\ncame forth out of Ur of the Chaldees, and went to Haran and dwelt there.\nWe turn to the map to look for Ur of the Chaldees, anxious to discover\nit as possibly Abraham's place of nativity, but find that the\ntranslators of God's inspired word have taken a slight liberty with the\ntext by substituting \"Ur of the Chaldees\" for \"Aur Kasdim,\" the latter\nbeing, in plain English, _the light of the magi, or conjurors, or\nastrologers_ is stated by Kalisch to have been made the basis for many\nextraordinary legends, as to Abraham's rescue from the flames. In the\nTalmud P'sachim, fol. 118, col. 1, it is written that \"At the time when\nNimrod the wicked had cast our Father Abraham into the fiery furnace,\nGabriel stood forth in the presence of the Holy one--blessed be He!--and\nsaid, 'Lord of the universe, let me, I pray thee, go down and cool the\nfurnace, and deliver that righteous one from it.'\"\n\n [29] The quotations are taken from Hershon's Talmudical Miscellany.\n\nAbraham, being born--according to Hebrew chronology, 2,083 years after\nthe creation, and according to the Septuagint 3,549 years after that\nevent--when his father was seventy, grew so slowly that when his father\nreached the good old age of 205 years, Abraham had only arrived at 75\nyears, having, apparently, lost no less than 60 years' growth during his\nfather's fife-time. St. Augustine and St. Jerome gave this up as a\ndifficulty inexplicable. Calmet endeavors to explain it, and makes it\nworse. It is surely impossible Abraham could have lived 135 years, and\nyet be only 75 years of age?\n\n\"The Lord\" spoke to Abraham, and promised to make of him a great nation,\nto bless those who blessed Abraham, and to curse those who cursed him. I\ndo not know precisely which Lord it was that spake unto Abraham, the\nHebrew says it was Jeue, or, as our translators call it, Jehovah, but as\nGod said (Exodus vi, 2) that by the name \"Jehovah was I not known\" to\neither Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob, either the omniscient Deity had\nforgotten the matter, or a counterfeit Lord had assumed the name. The\nword Jehovah, which the book of Exodus says Abraham did not know, is\nnearly always the name by which Abraham addresses, or speaks of, the\nJewish Deity.\n\nAbraham having been promised protection by the God of Truth, initiated\nhis public career with a diplomacy of statement worthy Talleyrand. He\nrepresented his wife Sarah as his sister, which, if true, is a sad\nreproach to the marriage. The Talmud, when Abram came into Egypt, asks:\n\"Where was Sarah? He confined her in a chest, into which he locked her,\nlest anyone should gaze on her beauty. When he came to the receipt of\ncustom, he was summoned to open the chest, but declined, and offered\npayment of the duty. The officers said: 'Thou carryest garments;' and he\noffered duty for garments. 'Nay, it is gold thou carriest;' and he\noffered the impost laid on gold. Then they said: 'It is costly silks,\nbelike pearls, thou concealest;' and he offered the custom on such\narticles. At length the Egyptian officers insisted, and he opened the\nbox. And when he did so, all the land of Egypt was illumined by her\nbeauty\" (Bereshith Rabba, chap. 40). The ruling Pharaoh, hearing the\nbeauty of Sarah commended, took her into his house, she being at that\ntime a fair Jewish dame, between 60 and 70 years of age, and he\nentreated Abraham well for her sake, and he had sheep and oxen, asses\nand servants, and camels. We do not read that Abraham objected in any\nway to the loss of his wife. The Lord, who is all-just, finding out that\nPharaoh had done wrong, not only punished the king, but also punished\nthe king's household, who could hardly have interfered with his\nmisdoings. Abraham got his wife back, and went away much richer by the\ntransaction. Whether the conduct of father Abraham in pocketing quietly\nthe price of the insult--or honor--offered to his wife, is worthy modern\nimitation, is a question only within the competence of episcopal\nauthority. After this Abraham was very rich in \"silver and gold.\" So was\nthe Duke of Marlborough after the Duke of York had taken his sister in\nsimilar manner into his house. In Gen. xii, 19, there is a curious\nmistranslation in our version. The text is: \"It is for that I had taken\nher for my wife;\" our version has: \"I _might have taken_ her.\" The Douay\nso translates as to take a middle phrase, leaving it doubtful whether or\nnot Pharaoh actually took Sarah as his wife. In any case, the Egyptian\nking acted far the better of the twain. Abraham plays the part of a\ntimorous, contemptible hypocrite. Strong enough to have fought for his\nwife, he sold her. Yet Abraham is blessed, and his conduct is our\npattern!\n\nDespite his timorousness in the matter of his wife, Abraham was a man of\nwonderful courage and warlike ability. To rescue his relative, Lot--with\nwhom he could not live on the same land without quarrelling, both being\nreligious--he armed 318 servants, and fought with four powerful kings,\ndefeating them and recovering the spoil. Abraham's victory was so\ndecisive, that the King of Sodom, who fled and fell (xiv, 10) in a\nprevious encounter, now met Abraham alive (see verse 17), to\ncongratulate him on his victory. Abraham was also offered bread and wine\nby Melchisedek, King of Salem, priest of the Most High God. Where was\nSalem? Some identify it with Jerusalem, which it cannot be, as Jebus was\nnot so named until after the time of the Judges (Judges xix, 10). How\ndoes this King of this unknown Salem, never heard of before or after,\ncome to be priest of the Most High God? These are queries for\ndivines--orthodox disciples believe without inquiring. Melchisedek was\nmost unique as far as genealogy is concerned. He had no father. He was\nwithout mother also; he had no beginning of days or end of life, and\nmust be therefore at the present time an extremely old gentleman, who\nwould be an invaluable acquisition to any antiquarian Bible Evidence\nAssociation fortunate enough to cultivate his acquaintance. God having\npromised. Abraham a numerous family, and the promise not having been in\nany part fulfilled, the patriarch grew uneasy, and remonstrated with the\nLord, who explained the matter thoroughly to Abraham when the latter was\nin a deep sleep, and a dense darkness prevailed. Religious explanations\ncome with greater force under these or similar conditions. Natural or\nartificial light and clear-sightedness are always detrimental to\nspiritual manifestations.\n\nAbraham's wife had a maid named Hagar, and she bore to Abraham a child\nnamed Ishmael; at the time Ishmael was born, Abraham was 86 years of\nage. Just before Ishmael's birth Hagar was so badly treated that she ran\naway. As she was only a slave, God persuaded Hagar to return and humble\nherself to her mistress. Thirteen years afterwards God appeared to\nAbraham, and instituted the rite of circumcision--which rite had been\npractised long before by other nations--and again renewed the promise.\nThe rite of circumcision was not only practised by nations long anterior\nto that of the Jews, but appears in many cases not even to have been\npretended as a religious rite (See Kalisch, Genesis, p. 386; Cahen,\nGenese, p. 43). After God had \"left off talking with him, God went up\nfrom Abraham.\" As God is infinite, he did not, of course, go up; but\nstill the Bible says God went up, and it is the duty of the people to\nbelieve that he did so, especially as the infinite Deity then and now\nresides habitually in \"heaven\" wherever that may be. Again the Lord\nappeared to Abraham, either as three men or angels or as one of the\nthree, and Abraham, hospitably inclined, invited the three to wash their\nfeet and to rest under the tree, and gave butter and milk and dressed\ncalf, tender and good, to them, and they did eat; and after the enquiry\nas to where Sarah then was, the promise of a son is repeated.\nSarah--then by her own admission an old woman, stricken in\nyears--laughed when she heard this, and the Lord said: \"Wherefore did\nSarah laugh?\" and Sarah denied it; but the Lord said: \"Nay, but thou\ndidst laugh.\" The three men then went toward Sodom, and Abraham with\nthem as a guide; and the Lord explained to Abraham that some sad reports\nhad reached him about Sodom and Gomorrah, and that he was then going to\nfind out whether the report was reliable. God is omnipresent, and was\nalways therefore at Sodom and Gomorrah, but had apparently been\ntemporarily absent; he is omniscient, and therefore knew everything\nwhich was happening at Sodom and Gomorrah, but he did not know whether\nor not the people were as wicked they had been represented to him. God,\nJob tells us, \"put no trust in his servants, and his angels he charged\nwith folly.\" Between the rogues and the fools, therefore, the allwise\nand all-powerful God seems to be liable to be misled by the reports made\nto him. Two of the three men or angels went on to Sodom, and left the\nLord with Abraham, who began to remonstrate with Deity on the wholesale\ndestruction contemplated, and asked him to spare the city if fifty\nrighteous should be found within it. God said: \"If I find fifty\nrighteous within the city, then will I spare the place for their sakes.\"\nGod, being all-wise, knew there were not fifty in Sodom, and was\ndeceiving Abraham. By dint of hard bargaining in thorough Hebrew fashion\nAbraham, whose faith seemed to be tempered by distrust, got the\nstipulated number reduced to ten, and then \"the Lord went his way.\"\n\nJacob Ben Chajim, in his introduction to the Rabbinical Bible (p. 28),\ntells us that the Hebrew text used to read in verse 22: \"And Jehovah\nstill stood before Abraham;\" but the scribes altered it, and made\nAbraham stand before the Lord, thinking the original text offensive to\nDeity.\n\nGenesis xviii has given plenty of work to the divines. Augustine\ncontended that God can take food, though he does not require it. Justin\ncompared \"the eating of God with the devouring power of the fire.\"\nKalisch sorrows over the holy fathers \"who have taxed all their\ningenuity to make the act of eating compatible with the attributes of\nDeity.\"\n\nIn the Epistle to the Romans Abraham's faith is greatly praised. We are\ntold (iv, 19 and 20) that: \"Being not weak in faith, he considered not\nhis own body now dead, when he was about an hundred years old, neither\nyet the deadness of Sarah's womb. He staggered not at the promise of God\nthrough unbelief; but was strong in faith, giving glory to God.\" Yet, so\nfar from Abraham giving God glory, Genesis xvii, 17, says that: \"Abraham\nfell upon his face and laughed, and said in his heart, Shall a child be\nborn unto him that is an hundred years old? and shall Sarah, that is\nninety years old, bear?\" The Rev. Mr. Boutell says that \"the declaration\nwhich caused Sarah to 'laugh' shows the wonderful familiarity which was\nthen permitted to Abraham in his communications with God.\"\n\nAfter the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham journeyed south and\nsojourned in Gerar, and, either untaught or too well taught by his\nprevious experience, again represented his wife as his sister, and\nAbimelech, king of Gerar, sent and took Sarah. As before, we find\nneither remonstrance nor resistance recorded on the part of Abraham.\nThis time God punished the women in Abimelech's house for an offence\nthey did not commit, and Sarah was again restored to her husband, with\nsheep, oxen, men-servants, women-servants, and money. Infidels object\nthat the Bible says Sarah \"was old and well stricken in age;\" that \"it\nhad ceased to be with her after the manner of women;\" that she was more\nthan 90 years of age; and that it is not likely King Abimelech would\nfall in love with an ugly old woman; but if Genesis be true, it is clear\nthat Sarah had not ceased to be attractive, as God resorted to especial\nmeans to protect her from Abimelech. At length Isaac was born, and his\nmother Sarah urged Abraham to expel Hagar and her son, \"and the thing\nwas very grievous in Abraham's sight because of his son;\" the mother\nbeing only a bondwoman does not seem to have troubled him. God, however,\napproving Sarah's notion, Hagar was expelled, \"and she departed and\nwandered in the wilderness, and the water was spent in the bottle, and\nshe cast the child under one of the shrubs.\" She had apparently carried\nthe child, who--being at least more than 14, and according to some\ncalculations as much as 17 years of age--must have been a heavy child to\ncarry in a warm climate.\n\nThe Talmud says: \"On the day when Isaac was weaned Abraham made a great\nfeast, to which he invited all the people of the land. Not all of those\nwho came to enjoy the feast believed in the alleged occasion of its\ncelebration, for some said contemptuously, 'This old couple have adopted\na foundling, and provided a feast to persuade us to believe that the\nchild is their own offspring.' What did Abraham do? He invited all the\ngreat men of the day, and Sarah invited their wives, who brought their\ninfants, but not their nurses, along with them. On this occasion Sarah's\nbreasts became like two fountains, for she supplied, of her own body,\nnourishment to all the children. Still some were unconvinced, and said,\n'Shall a child be born to one that is a hundred years old, and shall\nSarah, who is ninety years old, bear?' (Gen. xvii, 17). Whereupon, to\nsilence this objection, Isaac's face was changed, so that it became the\nvery picture of Abraham's; then one and all exclaimed, 'Abraham begat\nIsaac'\" (Bara Metzia, fol. 87, col. 1).\n\nGod never did tempt any man at any time, but he \"did tempt Abraham\" to\nkill Isaac by offering him as a burnt offering. The doctrine of human\nsacrifice is one of the holy mysteries of Christianity, as taught in the\nOld and New Testament. Of course, judged from a religious or Biblical\nstand-point, it cannot be wrong, as, if it were, God would not have\npermitted Jephtha to sacrifice his daughter by offering her as a burnt\noffering, nor have tempted Abraham to sacrifice his son, nor have said\nin Leviticus, \"None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be\nredeemed; but shall surely be put to death\" (xxvii, 29), nor have in the\nNew Testament worked out the monstrous sacrifice of his only son Jesus,\nat the same time son and begetting father.\n\nAbraham did not seem to be entirely satisfied with his own conduct when\nabout to kill Isaac, for he not only concealed from his servants his\nintent, but positively stated that which was not true, saying, \"I and\nthe lad will go yonder and worship, and come again to you.\" If he meant\nthat he and Isaac would come again to them, then he knew that the\nsacrifice would not take place. Nay, Abraham even deceived his own son,\nwho asked him where was the lamb for the burnt offering? But we learn\nfrom the New Testament that Abraham acted in this and other matters \"by\nfaith,\" so his falsehoods and evasions, being results and aids of faith,\nmust be dealt with in an entirely different manner from transactions of\nevery day life. Just as Abraham stretched forth his hand to slay his\nson, the angel of the Lord called to him from heaven, and prevented the\nmurder, saying, \"Now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not\nwithheld thy son.\" This conveys the impression that up to that moment\nthe angel of the Lord was not quite certain upon the subject.\n\nIn Genesis xiii God says to Abraham, \"Lift up now thine eyes, and look\nfrom the place where thou art northward, and southward, and eastward,\nand westward. For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it,\nand to thy seed for ever. Arise, walk through the land, in the length of\nit, and in the breadth of it, for I will give it unto thee.\" Yet, as is\nadmitted by the Rev. Charles Boutell, in his \"Bible Dictionary,\" \"The\nonly portion of territory in that land of promise, of which Abraham\nbecame possessed,\" was a graveyard, which he had bought and paid for.\nAlthough Abraham was too old to have children before the birth of Isaac,\nhe had many children after Isaac [was] born. He lived to \"a good old\nage\" and died \"full of years,\" but was yet younger than any of those who\npreceded him, and whose ages are given in the Bible history, except\nNahor.\n\nAccording to the Talmud, as Abraham was very pious so were his very\ncamels, for they would not enter into a place where there were idols\n(Avoth d' Rabbi Nathan, chap. 8).\n\nAbraham gave \"all that he had to Isaac,\" but appears to have distributed\nthe rest of the property amongst his other children, who were sent to\nenjoy it somewhere down East.\n\nAccording to the New Testament, Abraham is now in Paradise, but Abraham\nin heaven is scarcely an improvement upon Abraham on earth. When he was\nentreated by an unfortunate in hell for a drop of water to cool his\ntongue, father Abraham replied: \"Son, remember that in thy lifetime thou\nreceivedst thy good things, and now thou art tormented,\" as if the\nreminiscence of past good would alleviate present and future continuity\nof evil.\n\nRabbi Levi says that Abraham sits at the gate of hell and does not\npermit any circumcised Israelite to enter (Yalkut Shimoni, fol. 33, col.\n2, sec. 18).\n\nThe Talmud declares that \"Abraham was a giant of giants; his height was\nas that of _seventy-four_ men put together. His food, his drink, and his\nstrength were in the proportion of seventy-four men's to one man's. He\nbuilt an iron city for the abode of his seventeen children by Keturah,\nthe walls of which were so lofty that the sun never penetrated them; he\ngave them a bowl full of precious stones, the brilliancy of which\nsupplied them with light in the absence of the sun.\" (Sophrim, chap.\n21).\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF JACOB\n\n\nIT ought to be pleasant work to present sketches of God's chosen people.\nMore especially should it be an agreeable task to recapitulate the\ninteresting events occurring during the life of a man whom God has\nloved. Jacob was the son of Isaac; the grandson of Abraham. These three\nmen were so free from fault, their lives so unobjectionable, that the\nGod of the Bible delighted to be called the \"God of Abraham, the God of\nIsaac, and the God of Jacob.\" It is true that Abraham owned slaves, was\nnot always exact to the truth, and, on one occasion, turned his wife and\nchild out to the mercies of a sandy desert; that Isaac in some sort\nfollowed his father's example and disingenuous practices; and that Jacob\nwas without manly feeling, a sordid, selfish, unfraternal cozener, a\ncowardly trickster, a cunning knave; but they must nevertheless have\nbeen good men, for God was \"the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and\nthe God of Jacob.\" The name Jacob is not inappropriate. Kalisch\nsays--\"This appellation, if taken in its obvious etymological meaning,\nimplies a deep ignominy: for the root from which it is derived signifies\n_to deceive, to defraud_, and in such a despicable meaning the same form\nof the word is indeed used elsewhere\" (Jeremiah ix, 3.). Jacob would,\ntherefore, be nothing else but the crafty _impostor_; in this sense\nEsau, in the heat of his animosity, in fact clearly explains the word,\n\"justly is his name called Jacob (cheat) because he has cheated me\ntwice.\" (Genesis xxvii, 36.) Pious Jews in the formula for blessing the\nnew moon are taught in the Kabbalah \"to meditate on the initials of the\nfour divine epithets which form Jacob.\" According to the ordinary\northodox Bible chronology, Jacob was born about 1836 or 1837 B.C., that\nis, about 2168 years from \"in the beginning,\" his father Isaac being\nthen sixty years of age. There is a difficulty connected with Holy\nScripture chronology which would be insuperable were it not that we have\nthe advantage of spiritual aids in elucidation of the text. This\ndifficulty arises from the fact that the chronology of the Bible, in\nthis respect, like the major portion of Bible history, is utterly\nunreliable. But we do not look to the Old or New Testament for mere\ncommon-place, every-day facts--if we do, severe will be the\ndisappointment of the truth-seeker--we look there for mysteries,\nmiracles, paradoxes, and perplexities, and have no difficulty in\n[finding] the objects of our search. Jacob was born, together with his\ntwin brother, Esau, in consequence of special entreaty addressed by\nIsaac to the Lord on behalf of Re-bekah, to whom he had been married\nabout nineteen years, and who was yet childless. Infidel physiologists\n(and it is a not unaccountable fact, that all who are physiologists are\nalso in so far infidel) assert that prayer would do little to repair the\nconsequence of such disease, or such abnormal organic structure, as had\ncompelled sterility. But our able clergy are agreed that the Bible was\nnot intended to teach us science; or, at any rate, we have learned that\nits attempts in that direction are most miserable failures. Its mission\nis to teach the unteachable: to enable us to comprehend the\nincomprehensible. Before Jacob was born God decreed that he and his\ndescendants should obtain the mastery over Esau and his descendants:\n\"the elder shall serve the younger.\" (Gen. xxv, 23) The God of the Bible\nis a just God, but it is hard for weak flesh to discover the justice of\nthis proemial decree, which so sentenced to servitude the children of\nEsau before their father's birth. Jacob came into the world holding by\nhis brother's heel, like some cowardly knave in the battle of life, who,\nnot daring to break a gap in the hedge of conventional prejudice, which\nbars his path, is yet ready enough to follow some bolder warrior, and to\ngather the fruits of his courage. \"And the boys grew: and Esau was a\ncunning hunter, a man of the field: and Jacob was a plain man, dwelling\nin tents.\" One day, Esau returned from his hunting, faint and wearied to\nthe very point of death. He was hungry, and came to Jacob, his twin and\nonly brother, saying, \"Feed me, I pray thee\" (Ibid., xxv, 30) \"for I am\nexceedingly faint.\" (Douay Version) In a like case would not any man so\nentreated immediately offer to the other the best at his command, the\nmore especially when that other is his only brother, born at the same\ntime, from the same womb, suckled at the same breast, fed under the same\nroof? But Jacob was not merely a man and a brother, he was one of God's\nchosen people, and one who had been honored by God's prenatal selection.\n\"If a man come unto me and hate not his brother, he cannot be my\ndisciple.\" So taught Jesus the Jew, in after time, and in this earlier\nage Jacob the Jew, in practice, anticipated the later doctrine. It is\none of the misfortunes of theology, if not its crime, that profession of\nlove to God is often accompanied with bitter and active hate of man.\nJacob was one of the founders of the Jewish race, and even in this their\nprehistoric age, the instinct for driving a hard bargain seems strongly\ndeveloped. \"Jacob said\" to Esau, \"Sell me this day thy birthright.\" The\nfamished man vainly expostulated, and the birthright was sold for a mess\nof pottage. If to-day one man should so meanly and cruelly take\nadvantage of his brother's necessities to rob him of his birthright, all\ngood and honest men would shun him as an un-brotherly scoundrel, and\nmost contemptible knave; yet, less than\n\n4,000 years ago, a very different standard of morality must have\nprevailed. Indeed, if God is unchangeable, divine notions of honor and\nhonesty must to-day be widely different from those of our highest men.\nGod approved and endorsed Jacob's conduct. His approval is shown by his\nlove, afterwards expressed for Jacob; his endorsement by his subsequent\nattention to Jacob's welfare. We may learn from this tale, so pregnant\nwith instruction, that any deed which to the worldly and sensible man\nappears like knavery while understood literally becomes to the devout\nand prayerful man an act of piety when understood spiritually. Pious\npreachers and clever commentators declare that Esau despised his\nbirthright. I do not deny that they might back their declaration by\nscripture quotations, but I do deny that the narrative ought to convey\nany such impression. Esau's words were, \"Behold I am at the point to\ndie: and what profit shall this birthright be to me?\"\n\nBereshith Rabba, cap. 95, says that \"wherever Jacob resided, he studied\nthe law as his fathers did,\" and it adds, \"How is this, seeing that the\nlaw had not yet been given?\" There is no record that Esau also studied\nthe law, and there is no mention of any legal proceedings to set aside\nthis very questionable birthright transfer.\n\nIsaac growing old, and fearing from his physical infirmities the near\napproach of death, was anxious to bless Esau before he died, and\ndirected him to take quiver and bow and go out in the field to hunt some\nvenison for a savory meat, such as old Isaac loved. Esau departed, but\nwhen he had left his father's presence in order to fulfil his request,\nJacob appeared on the scene. Instigated by his mother, he, by an abject\nstratagem, passed himself off as Esau. With a savory meat prepared by\nRebekah, he came into his father's presence, and Isaac said, \"Who art\nthou, my son?\" Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord. The Lord loved\nJacob, yet Jacob lied to his old blind father, saying, \"I am Esau thy\nfirstborn.\" Isaac had some doubts: these are manifested by his inquiring\nhow it was that the game was killed so quickly. Jacob, whom God loved,\nin a spirit of shameless blasphemy replied, \"Because the Lord thy God\nbrought it to me.\" Isaac still hesitated, fancying that he recognised\nthe voice to be the voice of Jacob, and again questioned him, saying,\n\"Art thou my very son Esau?\" God is the God of truth and loved Jacob,\nyet Jacob said, \"I am.\" Then Isaac blessed Jacob, believing that he was\nblessing Esau and God permitted the fraud to be successful, and himself\nalso blessed Jacob. In that extraordinary composition known as the\nEpistle to the Hebrews, we are told that by faith Isaac blessed Jacob.\nBut what faith had Isaac? Faith that Jacob was Esau? His belief was\nproduced by deceptive appearances. His faith resulted from false\nrepresentations. And there are very many men in the world who have no\nbetter foundation for their religious faith than had Isaac when he\nblessed Jacob, believing him to be Esau. In the Douay Bible I find the\nfollowing note on this remarkable narrative: \"St. Augustine (_L. contra\nmendacium_, c. 10), treating at large upon this place, excuseth Jacob\nfrom a lie, because this whole passage was mysterious, as relating to\nthe preference which was afterwards to be given to the Gentiles before\nthe carnal Jews, which Jacob, by prophetic light, might understand. So\nfar it is certain that the first birthright, both by divine election and\nby Esau's free cession, belonged to Jacob; so that if there were any lie\nin the case, it would be no more than an officious and venial one.\" How\nglorious to be a patriarch, and to have a real saint laboring years\nafter your death to twist your lies into truth by aid of prophetic\nlight! Lying is at all times most disreputable, but at the deathbed the\ncrime is rendered more heinous. The death hour would have awed many men\ninto speaking the truth, but it had little effect on Jacob. Although\nIsaac was about to die, this greedy knave cared not, so that he got from\nthe dying man the sought-for prize. God is said to love righteousness\nand hate iniquity, yet he loved the iniquitous Jacob, and hated the\nhonest Esau. All knaves are tinged more or less with cowardice. Jacob\nwas no exception to the rule. His brother, enraged at the deception\npractised upon Isaac, threatened to kill Jacob. Jacob was warned by his\nmother and fled. Induced by Rebekah, Isaac charged Jacob to marry one of\nLaban's daughters. On the way to Haran, where Laban dwelt, Jacob rested\nand slept. While sleeping he dreamed; ordinarily, dreams have little\nsignificance, but in the Bible they are more important. Some of the most\nweighty and vital facts of the Bible are communicated in dreams; and\nrightly so; if the men had been wideawake they would have probably\nrejected the revelation as absurd. So much does that prince of darkness,\nthe devil, influence mankind against the Bible in the day time, that it\nis when all is dark, and our eyes are closed, and the senses dormant,\nthat God's mysteries are most clearly seen and understood. Jacob \"saw in\nhis sleep a ladder standing upon the earth, and the top thereof touching\nheaven; the angels also, of God ascending and descending by it, and the\nLord leaning upon the ladder (Gen. xxviii, 12 and 13, Douay Version). In\nthe ancient temples of India, and in the mysteries of Mithra, the\nseven-stepped ladder by which the spirits ascended to heaven is a\nprominent feature, and one of probably far higher antiquity than the age\nof Jacob. Did paganism furnish the groundwork for the patriarch's dream?\n\"No man hath seen God at anytime.\" God is \"invisible.\" Yet Jacob saw the\ninvisible God, whom no man hath seen or can see, either standing above a\nladder or leaning upon it. True, it was all a dream. Yet God spoke to\nJacob, but perhaps that was a delusion too. We find by scripture that\nGod threatens to send to some \"strong delusions that they might believe\na lie and be damned.\" Poor Jacob was much frightened; as any one might\nbe, to dream of God leaning on so long a ladder. What if it had broken,\nand the dreamer underneath it? Jacob's fears were not so powerful but\nthat his shrewdness and avarice had full scope in a sort of half-vow,\nhalfcontract, made in the morning. Jacob said, \"If God will be with me\nand will keep me in this way that I go, and will give me bread to eat,\nand raiment to put on, so that I shall come again to my father's house\nin peace, then shall the Lord be my God.\" The inference deducible from\nthis conditional statement is, that if God failed to complete the items\nenumerated by Jacob, then the latter would have nothing to do with him.\nJacob was a shrewd Jew, who would have laughed to scorn the preaching\n\"Take no thought, saying, what shall we eat? or, what shall we drink?\nor, wherewithal shall we be clothed?\"\n\nAfter this contract Jacob went on his journey, and reached the house of\nhis mother's brother, Laban, into whose service he entered. \"Diamond cut\ndiamond\" would be an appropriate heading to the tale which gives the\ntransactions between Jacob the Jew and Laban the son of Nahor. Laban had\ntwo daughters. Rachel, the youngest, was \"beautiful and well-favored;\"\nLeah, the elder, was \"blear-eyed.\" Jacob served for the pretty one; but\non the wedding day Laban made a feast, and when evening came gave Jacob\nthe ugly Leah instead of the pretty Rachel. Jacob being (according to\nJosephus) both in drink and in the dark, it was morning ere he\ndiscovered his error. After this Jacob served for Rachel also, and then\nthe remainder of the chapter of Jacob's servitude to Laban is but the\nrecital of a series of frauds and trickeries. Jacob embezzled Laban's\nproperty, and Laban misappropriated and changed Jacob's wages. In fact,\nif Jacob had not possessed the advantage of divine aid, he would\nprobably have failed in the endeavor to cheat his master, but God, who\nsays \"thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, nor anything that is\nthy neighbor's,\" encouraged Jacob in his career of covetous criminalty.\nAt last Jacob, having amassed a large quantity of property, determined\nto abscond from his employment, and taking advantage of his uncle's\nabsence at sheepshearing \"he stole away unawares,\" taking with him his\nwives, his children, flocks, herds, and goods. To crown the whole,\nRachel, worthy wife of a husband so fraudulent, stole her father's gods.\n\nBut in those days God's ways were not as our ways. God came to Laban in\na dream and compounded the felony, saying, \"Take heed thou speak not\nanything harshly against Jacob.\"[30] This would probably prevent Laban\ngiving evidence in a police court against Jacob, and thus save him from\ntransportation or penal servitude. After a reconciliation and treaty had\nbeen effected between Jacob and Laban, the former went on his way \"and\nthe angels of God met him.\" Balaam's ass, at a later period, shared the\ngood fortune which was the lot of Jacob, for that animal also had a\nmeeting with an angel. Jacob was the grandson of the faithful Abraham to\nwhom angels also appeared. It is somewhat extraordinary that Jacob\nshould have manifested no surprise at meeting a host of angels. Still\nmore worthy of note is it that our good translators elevate the same\nwords into \"angels\" in verse 1, which they degrade into \"messengers\" in\nverse 3. John Bellamy, in his translation, says the \"angels\" were not\nimmortal angels, and it is very probable John Bellamy was right. Jacob\nsent messengers before him to Esau, and heard that the latter was coming\nto meet him followed by 400 men. Jacob, a timorous knave at best, became\nterribly afraid. He, doubtless, remembered the wrongs inflicted upon\nEsau, the cruel extortion of the birthright, and the fraudulent\nobtainment of the dying Isaac's blessing. He, therefore, sent forward to\nhis brother Esau a large present as a peace offering. He also divided\nthe remainder of his flocks, herds, and goods, into two divisions, that\nif one were smitten, the other might escape; sending these on, he was\nleft alone. While alone he wrestled with either a man, or an angel, or\nGod. The text says \"a man,\" the heading to the chapter says \"an angel\"\nand Jacob himself says that he has \"seen God face to face.\" Whether God,\nangel, or man, it was not a fair wrestle, and were the present editor of\nBell's Life referee, he would, unquestionably, declare it to be most\nunfair to touch \"the hollow of Jacob's thigh\" so as to put it \"out of\njoint,\" and consequently, award the result of the match to Jacob. Jacob,\nnotwithstanding the injury, still kept his grip, and the apocryphal\nwrestler, finding himself no match at fair struggling, and that foul\nplay was unavailing, now tried entreaty, and said, \"Let me go, for the\nday breaketh.\" Spirits never appear in the day time, when if they did\nappear, they could be seen and examined; they are often more visible in\nthe twilight, in the darkness, and in dreams. Jacob would not let go:\nhis life's instinct for bargaining prevailed, and probably, because he\ncould get nothing else, he insisted on his opponent's blessing, before\nhe let him go. In the Roman Catholic version of the Bible there is the\nfollowing note:--\"Chap. xxxii, v. 24. _A man, etc_.This was an angel in\nhuman shape, as we learn from _Osee_ (c. xii, v. 4). He is called God\n(xv, 28 and 30), because he represented the son of God. This wrestling,\nin which Jacob, assisted by God, was a match for an angel, was so\nordered (v. 28) that he might learn by this experiment of the divine\nassistance, that neither Esau, nor any other man, should have power to\nhurt him.\" How elevating it must be to the true believer to conceive God\nhelping Jacob to wrestle with his own representative. On the morrow\nJacob met Esau.\n\n [30] Genesis, xxxi, v. 24, Douay version.\n\n\"And Esau ran to meet him, and embraced him, and fell on his neck, and\nkissed[31] him; and they wept.\"\n\n [31] The Talmud says: \"Read not 'and he kissed him,' but read 'and he\n      bit him'\" (Pirke d'Rab Eliezer, chap. 36); and Rabbi Yanai says:\n      \"Esau did not come to kiss him, but to bite him; only the neck of\n      Jacob our father became as hard as marble, and this blunted the\n      teeth of the wicked one. And what is taught by the expression 'And\n      they wept?' 'The one wept for his neck, and the other for his\n      teeth\" (\"Midrash Rabbah,\" c. 68). Aben Ezra says that this\n      exposition is only fit for children.\n\n\"And he said, What meanest thou by all this drove which I met? And he\nsaid, These are to find grace in the sight of my lord.\" \"And Esau said,\nI have enough, my brother; keep that thou hast unto thyself.\"\n\n\"The last portion of the history of Jacob and Esau\", writes G. J.\nHolyoake, \"is very instructive. The coward fear of Jacob to meet his\nbrother is well delineated. He is subdued by a sense of his treacherous\nguilt. The noble forgiveness of Esau invests his memory with more\nrespect than all the wealth Jacob won, and all the blessings of the Lord\nhe received. Could I change my name from Jacob to Esau, I would do it in\nhonor of him. The whole incident has a dramatic interest. There is\nnothing in the Old or New Testament equal to it. The simple magnanimity\nof Esau is scarcely surpassed by anything in Plutarch. In the conduct of\nEsau, we see the triumph of time, of filial affection, and generosity\nover a deep sense of execrable treachery, unprovoked and irrevocable\ninjury.\" Was not Esau a merciful, noble, generous man? Yet God hated\nhim, and shut him out of all share in the promised land. Was not Jacob a\nmean, prevaricating knave: a crafty, abject cheat? Yet God loved and\nrewarded him. How great are the mysteries in this Bible representation\nof an all-good and all-loving God, thus hating good, and loving evil! At\nthe time of the wrestling a promise was made, which is afterwards\nrepeated by God to Jacob, that the latter should not be any more called\nJacob, but Israel. This promise was not strictly kept; the name \"Jacob\"\nbeing used repeatedly, mingled with that of Israel in the after part of\nJacob's history. Jacob had a large family; his sons are reputedly the\nheads of the twelve Jewish tribes. Joseph, who was much loved by his\nfather, was sold by his brethren into slavery. This transaction does not\nseem to have called for any special reproval from God. Joseph, who from\nearly life was skilled in dreams, succeeded by interpreting the visions\nof Pharaoh in obtaining a sort of premiership in Egypt; while filling\nwhich office he, like more modern Prime Ministers, \"placed his father\nand his brethren, and gave them a possession in the land of Egypt, in\nthe best of the land.\" Joseph not only gave his own family the best\nplace in the land, but he also, by a trick of statecraft, obtained the\nland for the king, made slaves of the people, and made it a law over the\nland of Egypt that the king should be entitled to one-fifth of the\nproduce, always, of course, excepting and saving the rights of the\npriest. Judah, another brother, sought to have burned a woman by whom he\nhad a child. A third, named Reuben, was guilty of the grossest vice,\nequalled only by that of Absalom the son of David; of Simeon and Levi,\ntwo more of Jacob's sons, it is said that \"instruments of cruelty were\nin their habitations;\" their conduct, as detailed in the 34th chapter of\nGenesis, alike shocks by its treachery and its mercilessness. After\nJacob had heard that his son Joseph was governor in Egypt, but before he\nhad journeyed farther than Beersheba, God spake unto him in the visions\nof the night, and probably forgetting that he had given him a new name,\nor being more accustomed to the old one, said, \"Jacob, Jacob,\" and then\ntold him to go down into Egypt; where Jacob died after a residence of\nabout seventeen years, when 147 years of age.[32] Before Jacob died he\nblessed first the sons of Joseph, and then his own children, and at the\ntermination of his blessing to Ephraim and Manasseh, we find the\nfollowing speech addressed to Joseph, \"Moreover I have given to thee one\nportion above thy brethren, which I took out of the hand of the Amorite\nwith my sword and with my bow.\" This speech implies warlike pursuits on\nthe part of Jacob, of which the Bible gives no record, and which seem\nincompatible with his recorded life. The sword of craft and the bow of\ncunning are the only weapons in the use of which he was skilled. When\nhis sons murdered and robbed the Hivites, fear seems to have been\nJacob's most prominent characteristic.\n\n [32] Bava Bathra, fol. 17, col. 1, says: \"Over six the angel of death\n      had no dominion and these were: Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, Moses,\n      Aaron, and Miriam,\" and it also says that these and Benjamin, the\n      son of Jacob, \"are seven who are not consumed by the worm in the\n      grave.\"\n\nThe Talmud says: \"The sons of Esau, of Ishmael, and of Keturah, went on\npurpose to dispute the burial (of Jacob); but when they saw that Joseph\nhad placed his crown upon the coffin, they did the same with theirs.\"\nThere were _thirty-six_ crowns in all, tradition says. \"And they mourned\nwith a great and very sore lamentation.\" Even the very horses and asses\njoined in it, we are told. On arriving at the cave of Machpelah, Esau\nonce more protested, and said, \"Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac\nand Rebekah, are all buried here. Jacob disposed of his share when he\nburied Leah in it, and the remaining one belongs to me.\" \"But thou didst\nsell thy share with thy birthright,\" remonstrated the sons of Jacob.\n\"Nay,\" rejoined Esau, \"that did not include my share in the burial\nplace.\" \"Indeed it did,\" they argued, \"for our father, just before he\ndied, said (Gen. i, 5), 'In my grave which I have bought for myself.'\"\n\"Where are the title-deeds?\" demanded Esau. \"In Egypt,\" was the answer.\nAnd immediately the swiftfooted Naphthali started for the records (\"So\nlight of foot was he,\" says the Book of Jasher, \"that he could go upon\nthe ears of corn without crushing them\"). Hushim, the son of Dan, being\ndeaf, asked what was the cause of the commotion. On being told what it\nwas, he snatched up a club and smote Esau so hard that his eyes dropped\nout and fell upon the feet of Jacob, at which Jacob opened his eyes and\ngrimly smiled (Soteh, fol. 13, col. 1).\n\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF MOSES\n\n\nTHE \"Life of Abraham\" was presented to our readers, because, as the\nnominal founder of the Jewish race, his position entitled him to that\nhonour. The \"Life of David,\" because, as one of the worst men and worst\nkings ever known, his history might afford matter for reflection to\nadmirers of monarchical institutions and matter for comment to the\nadvocates of a republican form of government. The \"Life of Jacob\" served\nto show how basely mean and contemptibly deceitful a man might become,\nand yet enjoy God's love. Having given thus a brief outline of the\ncareer of the patriarch, the king, and the knave, the life of a priest\nnaturally presents itself as the most fitting to complement the present\nquadrifid series.\n\nMoses, the great grandson of Levi, was born in Egypt, not far distant\nfrom the banks of the Nile, a river world-famous for its inundations,\nmade familiar to ordinary readers by the travellers who have journeyed\nto discover its source, and held in bad repute by strangers, especially\non account of the carnivorous Saurians who infest its waters. The mother\nand father of our hero were both of the tribe of Levi, and were named\nJochebed and Amram. The infant Moses was, at the age of three months,\nplaced in an ark of bulrushes by the river's brink. This was done in\norder to avoid the decree of extermination propounded by the reigning\nPharaoh against the male Jewish children. The daughter of Pharaoh,\ncoming down to the river to bathe, found the child and took compassion\nupon him, adopting him as her son. Of the early life of Moses we have\nbut scanty record. We are told in the New Testament that he was learned\nin the wisdom of the Egyptians (Acts vii, 21), and that \"when he was\ncome to years he refused\" by faith (Hebrews, xi, 24) \"to be called the\nson of Pharaoh's daughter.\" Perhaps the record from which the New\nTestament writers quoted has been lost; it is certain that the present\nversion of the Old Testament does not contain those statements. The\nrecord which is lost may have been God's original revelation to man, and\nof which our Bible may be an incomplete version. I am little grieved by\nthe supposition that a revelation may have been lost, being, for my own\npart, more inclined to think that no revelation has ever been made.\nJosephus says that, when quite a baby, Moses trod contemptuously on the\ncrown of Egypt. The Egyptian monuments and Exodus are both silent on\nthis point. Josephus also tells us that Moses led the Egyptians in war\nagainst the Ethiopians, and married Tharbis, the daughter of the\nEthiopian monarch. This also is omitted both in Egyptian history and in\nthe sacred record. When Moses was grown, according to the Old Testament,\nor when he was 40 years of age according to the New, \"it came into his\nheart to visit his brethren the children of Israel,\" \"And he spied an\nEgyptian smiting an Hebrew;\" \"And he looked this way and that way, and\nwhen he saw that there was no man, he slew the Egyptian, and hid him in\nthe sand.\" The New Testament says that he did it, \"for he supposed that\nhis brethren would understand how that God, by his hand, would deliver\nthem.\" (Acts vii, 25) But this is open to the following objections:--The\nOld Testament says nothing of the kind;--there was no man to see the\nhomicide, and as Moses hid the body, it is hard to conceive how he could\nexpect the Israelites to understand a matter of which they not only had\nno knowledge whatever, but which he himself did not think was known to\nthem;--if there were really no man present, the story of the after\naccusation against Moses needs explanation;--it might be further\nobjected that it does not appear that Moses at that time did even\nhimself conceive that he had any mission from God to deliver his people.\nMoses fled from the wrath of Pharaoh, and dwelt in Midian, where he\nmarried the daughter of one Reuel or Raguel, or Jethro. This name is not\nof much importance, but it is strange that if Moses wrote the books of\nthe Pentateuch he was not more exact in designating so near a relation.\nWhile acting as shepherd to his father-in-law, \"he led the flock to the\nback side of the desert,\" and \"the angel of the Lord appeared to him in\na flame of fire:\" that is, the angel was either a flame, or was the\nobject which was burning, for this angel appeared in the midst of a bush\nwhich burned with fire, but was not consumed. This flame appears to have\nbeen a luminous one, for it was a \"great sight,\" and attracted Moses,\nwho turned aside to see it. But the luminosity would depend on substance\nignited and rendered incandescent. Is the angel of the Lord a substance\nsusceptible of ignition and incandesence? Who knoweth? If so, will the\nfallen angels ignite and burn in hell? God called unto Moses out of the\nmidst of the bush. It is hard to conceive an infinite God in the middle\nof a bush, yet as the law of England says that we must not \"deny the\nHoly Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be of divine authority,\"\nin order not to break the law, I advise all to believe that, in addition\nto being in the middle of a bush, the infinite and all-powerful God also\nsat on the top of a box, dwelt sometimes in a tent, afterwards in a\ntemple; although invisible, appeared occasionally; and, being a spirit\nwithout body or parts, was hypostatically incarnate as a man. Moses,\nwhen spoken to by God, \"hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon\nGod.\" If Moses had known that God was _invisible_, he would have escaped\nthis fear. God told Moses that the cry of the children of Israel had\nreached him, and that he had _come down_ to deliver them, and that Moses\nwas to lead them out of Egypt. Moses does not seem to have placed entire\nconfidence in the phlegomic divine communication, and asked, when the\nJews should question him on the name of the Deity, what answer should he\nmake? It does not appear from this that the Jews, if they had so\ncompletely forgotten God's name, had much preserved the recollection of\nthe promise comparatively so recently made to Abraham, to Isaac, and to\nJacob. The answer given according to our version is, \"I am that I am;\"\naccording to the Douay, \"I am who am.\" God, in addition, told Moses that\nthe Jews should spoil the Egyptians of their wealth; but even this\npromise of plunder, so congenial to the nature of a bill-discounting Jew\nof the Bible type, did not avail to overcome the scruples of Moses. God\ntherefore taught him to throw his rod on the ground, and thus transform\nit into a serpent, from which pseudo-serpent Moses at first fled in\nfear, but on his taking it by the tail it resumed its original shape.\nMoses, with even other wonders at command, still hesitated; he had an\nimpediment in his speech. God cured this by the appointment of Aaron,\nwho was eloquent, to aid his brother. God directed Moses to return to\nEgypt, but his parting words must somewhat have damped the future\nlegislator's hope of any speedy or successful ending to his mission. God\nsaid, \"I will harden Pharaoh's heart that he shall not let the people\ngo.\" On the journey back to Egypt God met Moses \"by the way in the inn,\nand sought to kill him.\" I am ignorant as to the causes which prevented\nthe omnipotent Deity from carrying out his intention; the text does not\nexplain the matter, and I am not a bishop or a D.D., and I do not\ntherefore feel justified in putting my assumptions in place of God's\nrevelation. Moses and Aaron went to Pharaoh, and asked that the Jews\nmight be permitted to go three days' journey in the wilderness; but the\nKing of Egypt not only refused their request, but gave them additional\ntasks, and in consequence Moses and Aaron went again to the Lord, who\ntold them, \"I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob by the\nname of God Almighty; but by my name Jehovah was I not known unto them.\"\nWhether God had forgotten that the name Jehovah was known to Abraham, or\nwhether he was here deceiving Moses and Aaron, are points the solution\nof which I leave to the faithful referring them to the fact that Abraham\ncalled a place (Genesis xxii, 14) Jehovah-Jireh. After this Moses and\nAaron again went to Pharaoh and worked wonderfully in his presence.\nThaumaturgy is coming into fashion again, but the exploits of Moses far\nexceeded any of those performed by Mr. Home or the Davenport Brothers.\nAaron flung down his rod, and it became a serpent; the Egyptian\nmagicians flung down their rods, which became serpents also; but the rod\nof Aaron, as though it had been a Jew money-lender or a tithe collecting\nparson, swallowed up these miraculous competitors, and the Jewish\nleaders could afford to laugh at their defeated rival conjurors. Moses\nand Aaron carried on the miracle-working for some time. All the water of\nthe land of Egypt was turned by them into blood, but the magicians did\nso with their enchantments, and it had no effect on Pharaoh. Then\nshowers of frogs, at the instance of Aaron, covered the land of Egypt;\nbut the Egyptians did so with their enchantments, and frogs abounded\nstill more plentifully. The Jews next tried their hands at the\nproduction of lice, and here--to the glory of God be it said--the\ninfidel Egyptians failed to imitate them. It is written that\n\"cleanliness is next to godliness,\" but we cannot help thinking that\ngodliness must have been far from cleanliness when the former so soon\nresulted in lice. The magicians were now entirely discomfited. The\npreceding wonders seem to have affected all the land of Egypt; but in\nthe next miracle the swarms of flies sent were confined to Egyptians\nonly, and were not extended to Goshen, in which the Israelites dwelt.\n\nThe next plague in connection with the ministration of Moses and Aaron\nwas that \"all the cattle of Egypt died.\" After \"all the cattle\" were\ndead, a boil was sent, breaking forth with blains upon man and beast.\nThis failing in effect, Moses afterwards stretched forth his hand and\nsmote \"both man and beast\" with hail, then covered the land with\nlocusts, and followed this with a thick darkness throughout the land--a\ndarkness which _might_ have been felt. Whether it was felt is a matter\non which I am unable to pass an opinion. After this, the Egyptians being\nterrified by the destruction of their first-born children, the Jews, at\nthe instance of Moses, borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver,\njewels of gold, and raiment; and they spoiled the Egyptians. The fact\nis, that the Egyptians were in the same position as the payers of church\nrates, tithes, vicars' rates, and Easter dues: they lent to the Lord's\npeople, who are good borrowers, but slow when repayment is required.\nThey prefer promising you a crown of glory to paying you at once five\nshillings in silver. Moses led the Jews through the Red Sea, which\nproved a ready means of escape, as may be easily read in Exodus, which\nsays that the Lord \"made the sea dry land\" for the Israelites, and\nafterwards not only overwhelmed in it the Egyptians who sought to follow\nthem, but, as Josephus tells us, the current of the sea actually carried\nto the camp of the Hebrews the arms of the Egyptians, so that the\nwandering Jews might not be destitute of weapons. After this the\nIsraelites were led by Moses into Shur, where they were without water\nfor three days, and the water they afterwards found was too bitter to\ndrink until a tree had been cast into the well. The Israelites were then\nfed with manna, which, when gathered on Friday, kept for the Sabbath,\nbut rotted if kept from one week day to another. The people grew tired\nof eating manna, and complained, and God sent fire amongst them and\nburned them up in the uttermost parts of the camp; and after this the\npeople wept and said, \"Who shall give us flesh to eat? We remember the\nfish we did eat in Egypt freely; the cucumbers and the melons and the\nleeks and the onions and the garlic; but now there is nothing at all\nbeside this manna before our eyes.\" This angered the Lord, and he gave\nthem a feast of quails, and while the flesh was yet between their teeth,\nere it was chewed, the anger of the Lord was kindled, and he smote the\nJewish people with a very great plague (Numbers, ix). The people again\nin Rephidim were without water, and Moses therefore smote the Rock of\nHoreb with his rod, and water came out of the rock. At Rephidim the\nAmalekites and the Jews fought together, and while they fought Moses,\nlike a prudent general, went to the top of a hill, accompanied by Aaron\nand Hur, and it came to pass that when Moses held up his hands Israel\nprevailed, and when he let down his hands Amalek prevailed. But Moses'\nhands were heavy, and they took a stone and put it under him, and he sat\nthereon, and Aaron and Hur stayed up his hands, the one on the one side\nand the other on the other side, and his hands were steady until the\ngoing down of the sun, and Joshua discomfited Amalek, and his people\nwith the edge of the sword. How the true believer ought to rejoice that\nthe stone was so convenient, as otherwise the Jews might have been\nslaughtered, and there might have been no royal line of David, no Jesus,\nno Christianity. That stone should be more valued than the precious\nblack stone of the Moslem; it is the corner-stone of the system, the\nstone which supported the Mosaic rule. God is everywhere, but Moses went\nup unto him, and the Lord called to him out of a mountain and came to\nhim in a thick cloud, and descended on Mount Sinai in a fire, in\nconsequence of which the mountain smoked, and the Lord came down upon\nthe top of the mountain and called Moses up to him; and then the Lord\ngave Moses the Ten Commandments, and also those precepts which follow,\nin which Jews are permitted to buy their fellow-countrymen for six\nyears, and in which it is provided that, if the slave-master shall give\nhis six-year slave a wife, and she bear him sons or daughters, that the\nwife and the children shall be the property of her master. In these\nprecepts it is also permitted that a man may sell his own daughter for\nthe most base purposes. Also that a master may beat his slave, so that\nif he do not die until a few days after the ill-treatment, the master\nshall escape justice because the slave is his money. Also that Jews may\nbuy strangers and keep them as slaves for ever. While Moses was up in\nthe mount the people clamoured for Aaron to make them gods. Moses had\nstopped away so long that the people gave him up for lost. Aaron, whose\nduty it was to have pacified and restrained them, and to have kept them\nin the right faith, did nothing of the kind. He induced them to bring\nall their gold, and then made it into a calf, before which he built an\naltar, and then proclaimed a feast. Manners and customs change. In those\ndays the Jews did see the God that Aaron took their gold for, but now\nthe priests take the people's gold, and the poor contributors do not\neven see a calf for their pains, unless indeed they are near a mirror at\nthe time when they are making their voluntary contributions. And the\nLord told Moses what happened, and said, \"I have seen this people, and\nbehold it is a stiffnecked people. Now, therefore, let me alone that my\nwrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them.\" Moses\nwould not comply with God's request, but remonstrated, and expostulated,\nand begged him not to afford the Egyptians an opportunity of speaking\nagainst him. Moses succeeded in changing the unchangeable, and the Lord\nrepented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.\n\nAlthough Moses would not let God's \"wrath wax hot\" his own \"anger waxed\nhot,\" and he broke, in his rage, the two tables of stone which God had\ngiven him, and on which the Lord had graven and written with his own\nfinger. We have now no means of knowing in what language God wrote, or\nwhether Moses afterwards took any pains to rivet together the broken\npieces. It is almost to be wondered at that the Christian Evidence\nSocieties have not sent missionaries to search for these pieces of the\ntables, which may even yet remain beneath the mount. Moses took the calf\nwhich they had made and burned it with fire and ground it to powder, and\nstrewed it upon water and made the children of Israel drink of it. After\nthis Moses armed the priests and killed 3,000 Jews, \"and the Lord\nplagued the people because they had made the calf which Aaron had made.\"\n(Exodus xxxii, 35) Moses afterwards pitched the tabernacle without the\ncamp; and the cloudy pillar in which the Lord went, descended and stood\nat the door of the tabernacle; and the Lord talked to Moses \"face to\nface, as a man would to his friend.\" (Exodus xxxiii, 11) And the Lord\nthen told Moses, \"Thou canst not see my face, for there shall no man see\nme and live.\" (Exodus xxxiii, 20) Before this Moses and Aaron and Nadab\nand Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, \"saw the God of Israel,\nand there was under his feet, as it were, a paved work of sapphire\nstone,.. and upon the nobles of the children of Israel he laid not his\nhand; also they saw God, and did eat and drink.\" (Exodus xxix, 9)\n\nAaron, the brother of Moses, died under very strange circumstances. The\nLord said unto Moses, \"Strip Aaron of his garments and put them upon\nEleazar, his son, and Aaron shall be gathered unto his people and shall\ndie there.\" And Moses did as the Lord commanded, and Aaron died there on\nthe top of the mount, where Moses had taken him. There does not appear\nto have been any coroner's inquest in the time of Aaron, and the\nsuspicious circumstances of the death of the brother of Moses have been\npassed over by the faithful.\n\nWhen Moses was leading the Israelites near Moab, Balak the King of the\nMoabites sent to Balaam in order to get Balaam to curse the Jews. When\nBalak's messengers were with Balaam, God came to Balaam also, and asked\nwhat men they were. Of course God knew, but he inquired for his own wise\npurposes, and Balaam told him truthfully. God ordered Balaam not to\ncurse the Jews, and therefore the latter refused, and sent the Moabitish\nmessengers away. Then Balak sent again high and mighty princes under\nwhose influence Balaam went mounted on an ass, and God's anger was\nkindled against Balaam, and he sent an angel to stop him by the way; but\nthe angel did not understand his business well, and the ass first ran\ninto a field, and then close against the wall, and it was not until the\nangel removed to a narrower place that he succeeded in stopping the\ndonkey; and when the ass saw the angel she fell down. Balaam did not see\nthe angel at first; and, indeed, we may take it as a fact of history\nthat asses have always been the most ready to perceive angels.\n\nMoses may have been a great author, but we have little means of\nascertaining what he wrote in the present day. Divines talk of Genesis\nto Deuteronomy as the five books of Moses, but Eusebius, in the fourth\ncentury, attributed them to Ezra, and Saint Chrysostom says that the\nname of Moses has been affixed to the books without authority, by\npersons living long after him. It is quite certain that if Moses lived\n3,300 years ago, he did not write in square letter Hebrew, and this\nbecause the character has not existed so long. It is indeed doubtful if\nit can be carried back 2,000 years. The ancient Hebrew character, though\nprobably older than this, yet is comparatively modern amongst the\nancient languages of the earth.\n\nIt is urged by orthodox chronologists that Moses was born about 1450\nB.C., and that the Exodus took place about 1491 B.C. Unfortunately\n\"there are no recorded dates in the Jewish Scriptures that are\ntrustworthy.\" Moses, or the Hebrews, not being mentioned upon Egyptian\nmonuments from the twelfth to the seventeenth century B.C. inclusive,\nand never being alluded to by any extant writer who lived prior to the\nSeptuagint translation at Alexandria (commencing in the third century\nB.C.), there are no extraneous aids, from sources alien to the Jewish\nBooks, through which any information, worthy of historical acceptance,\ncan be gathered elsewhere about him or them.[33]\n\n [33] G.R. Gliddon's Types of Mankind: Mankind's Chronology, p 711\n\nMoses died in the land of Moab when he was 120 years of age. The Lord\nburied Moses in a valley of Moab, over against Bethpeor, but no man\nknoweth of his sepulchre unto this day. Josephus says that \"a cloud came\nover him on the sudden and he disappeared in a certain valley.\" The\ndevil disputed about the body of Moses, contending with the Archangel\nMichael (Jude, 9); but whether the devil or the angel had the best of\nthe discussion, the Bible does not tell us.\n\nDe Beauvoir Priaulx,[34] looking at Moses as a counsellor, leader, and\nlegislator, says:--\"Invested with this high authority, he announced to\nthe Jews their future religion, and announced it to them as a state\nreligion, and as framed for a particular state, and that state only. He\ngave this religion, moreover, a creed so narrow and negative--he limited\nit to objects so purely temporal, he crowded it with observances so\nentirely ceremonial or national--that we find it difficult to determine\nwhether Moses merely established this religion in order that by a\ncommunity of worship he might induce in the tribe-divided Israelites\nthat community of sentiment which would constitute them a nation; or,\nwhether he only roused them to a sense of their national dignity, in the\nhope that they might then more faithfully perform the duties of priests\nand servants of Jehovah. In other words, we hesitate to decide whether\nin the mind of Moses the state was subservient to the purposes of\nreligion, or religion to the purposes of state.\"\n\n [34] Questiones Mosaicae, p. 438.\n\nThe same writer observes[35] that, according to the Jewish writings,\nMoses \"is the friend and favourite of the Deity. He is one whose prayers\nand wishes, the Deity hastens to fulfil, one to whom the Deity makes\nknown his designs. The relations between God and the prophet are most\nintimate. God does not disdain to answer the questions of Moses, to\nremove his doubts, and even occasionally to receive his suggestions, and\nto act upon them even in opposition to his own pre-determined decrees.\"\n\n [35]   p. 418.\n\n\n\nNEW LIFE OF DAVID\n\n\nIN compiling a biographical account of any ancient personage,\nimpediments often arise from the uncertainty, party bias, and prejudiced\ncoloring of the various traditions out of which, the biography is\ncollected. Here no such obstacle is met with, no such bias can be\nimagined, for, in giving the life of David, we extract it from an\nall-wise God's perfect and infallible revelation to man, and thus are\nenabled to present it to our readers free from any doubt, uncertainty,\nor difficulty. There is perhaps the fear that the manner of this brief\nsketch may be adjudged to be within the operation of such common law as\nwisely protects the career of the saints from mere sinful common-sense\ncriticism; but as the matter is derived from the authorised version for\nwhich England is indebted to James, of royal and pious memory, this new\nlife of David may be safely left to the impartial judgment of Mr.\nJustice North, aided by the charitable and pious counsel of Sir Hardinge\nGiffard. The latter, who has had more than one criminal client for whom\nhe has most ably pleaded, might be relied on to make out a strong, if\nnot a good, case for punishing any one who is unfair to the man after\nGod's own heart. Mr. Justice Stephen has furnished me with some slight\nguide in his notice of Voltaire's play called \"David:\"--\n\n\"It constitutes, perhaps, the bitterest attack on David's character ever\ndevised by the wit of man, but the effect is produced almost exclusively\nby the juxtaposition, with hardly any alteration, of a number of texts\nfrom different parts of David's history. It would be a practical\nimpossibility to charge a jury in such a case, so as to embody Lord\nColeridge's view of the law. The judge would have to say: 'It is lawful\nto say that David was a murderer, an adulterer, a treacherous tyrant who\npassed his last moments in giving directions for assassinations; but you\nmust observe the decencies of controversy. You must not arrange your\nfacts in such a way as to mix ridicule with indignation, or to convey\ntoo striking a contrast between the solemn character of the documents\nfrom which the extracts are made, and the nature of the extracts\nthemselves, and of the facts to which they relate.'\"\n\nIt is in the spirit of this paragraph that I have penned the present\nlife.\n\nThe father of David was Jesse, an Ephrathite of Bethlehem Judah, who had\neither eight sons, (1 Samuel xvi, 10-11, and xvii, 12), or only seven (1\nChronicles, ii, 13-15), and David was either the eighth son or the\nseventh. Some may think this a difficulty, but such persons will only be\nthose who rely on their own intellectual faculties, or who have been\nmisled by arithmetic. If you are in any doubt, consult some qualified\ndivine, and he will explain to you that there is really no difference\nbetween eight and seven when rightly understood with prayer and faith,\nby the help of the spirit. Arithmetic is an utterly infidel acquirement,\nand one which all true believers should eschew. The proposition that\nthree times one are one is a fundamental article of the Christian faith.\nWhen young, David tended his father's sheep, and apparently while so\ndoing he gained a character for being cunning in playing a mighty\nvaliant man, a man of war and prudent in matters. He obtained his\nreputation as a soldier early and wonderfully, for he was \"but a youth;\"\nand God's most holy word asserts that when going to fight with Goliath,\nhe tried to walk in armor and could not, because he was not accustomed\nto it (1 Samuel xvii, 39 _c.f._ Douay version). Samuel shortly prior to\nthis anointed David, who, while yet a lad, had been selected by the Lord\nto be King of the Jews in place and stead of Saul, who had wickedly\ndisobeyed the commands of the Lord, who in his infinite love and mercy\nhad said (1 Sam. xv, 3): \"Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy\nall that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman,\ninfant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.\" Saul, however,\nbehaved unrighteously, for he \"spared Agag, and the best of the sheep,\nand of the oxen, and of the fatlings, and the lambs, and all that was\ngood, and would not utterly destroy them.\" This not unnaturally\nirritated and annoyed the Lord. \"Then came the word of the Lord unto\nSamuel, saying, It repenteth me that I have set up Saul to be King: for\nhe is turned back from following me, and hath not performed my\ncommandments,\" and the Lord bid Samuel fill a \"horn with oil,\" and sent\nSamuel, who anointed David the son of Jesse in the midst of his\nbrethren, and the spirit of the Lord came upon David from that day\nforward. If a man takes to spirits his life will probably be one of\nvice, misery, and misfortune; and if spirits take to him, the result in\nthe end is nearly the same. Every evil deed which the Bible records as\nhaving been done by David was after the spirit of the Lord had so come\nupon him. Saul being King of Israel, an evil spirit from the Lord\ntroubled him. The devil has, it is said, no love for music, and Saul was\nrecommended to have David to play on a harp, in order that harmony might\ndrive this evil spirit back to the Lord who sent it. The Jew's harp was\nplayed successfully, and Saul was often relieved from the evil spirit by\nDavid's ministrations. There is nothing miraculous in this; at the\nPeople's Concerts many a working man has been relieved from the \"blue\ndevils\" by a stirring chorus, a merry song, or patriotic anthem; and on\nthe contrary many evil spirits have been aroused by the most unmusical\nperformances of the followers of General Booth. David was appointed\narmor-bearer to the King; but curiously enough, this office does not\nappear to have interfered with his duties as a shepherd; indeed, the\ncare of his father's sheep took precedence over the care of the king's\narmor, and in the time of war he \"went and returned to feed his father's\nsheep.\" Perhaps his \"prudence in matters\" induced him thus to take care\nof himself.\n\nA Philistine, one Goliath of Gath (whose height was six cubits and a\nspan, or about nine feet six inches, at a low computation) had defied\nthe armies of Israel. This Goliath was (to use the vocabulary of a\nreverend sporting correspondent to a certain religious newspaper) a\nveritable champion of the heavy weights. He carried in all about two\ncwt. of offensive and defensive armor upon his person, and his challenge\nhad great weight. None dared accept it amongst the soldiers of Saul\nuntil the arrival of David, who brought some food for his brethren.\nDavid volunteered to fight the giant, but Elias, David's brother, having\nmocked the presumption of the offer, and Saul objecting that the\nventuresome lad was not competent to take part in a conflict so\ndangerous, David related how he pursued a lion and a bear, how he caught\nhim by his beard and slew him. Which animal it was that David thus\nbearded the text does not say. The Douay says it was \"a lion or a bear.\"\nTo those who have chased the king of the forests or studied the habits\nof bears, the whole story looks, on an attentive reading, \"very like a\nwhale.\" David was permitted to fight the giant; his equipment was\nsimple, a sling and stones, and with these, from a distance, he slew the\ngiant. Some suggest that the weapon Goliath fell under was the long bow.\nThis suggestion is rendered probable by the book itself. One verse says\nthat David slew the Philistine with a stone, another verse says that he\nslew him with the giant's own sword, while in 2 Samuel xxi, 19, we are\ntold that Goliath the Gittite was slain by Elhanan. Our translators, who\nhave great regard for our faith and more for their pulpits, have kindly\ninserted the words \"the brother of\" before Goliath. This emendation\nsaves the true believer from the difficulty of understanding how Goliath\nof Gath could have been killed by different men at different times.\nDavid was previously well known to Saul, and was much loved and favored\nby that monarch. He was also seen by the king before he went forth to do\nbattle with the gigantic Philistine. Yet (as if to verify the proverb\nthat kings have short memories for their friends) Saul had forgotten his\nown armor-bearer and muchloved harpist, and was obliged to ask Abner who\nDavid was. Abner, captain of the king's host, familiar with the person\nof the armor-bearer to the king, of course knew David well; he therefore\nanswered: \"As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell.\" David, having\nmade known his parentage, was appointed to high command by Saul; but the\nJewish women over-praised David, and thus displeased the king. One day\nthe evil spirit from the Lord came upon Saul and he prophesied. Men\noften talk great nonsense under the influence of spirits, which they\nsometimes regret when sober. It is, however, an interesting fact in\nancient spiritualism to know that Saul prophesied with a devil in him.\nUnder the joint influence of the devil and prophecy, Saul tried to kill\nDavid with a javelin, and this was repeated, even after David had\nmarried the king's daughter (whose wedding he had secured by the\nslaughter of two hundred men). Saul then asked his son and servants to\nkill David; but Jonathan, Saul's son, loved David, \"And Saul hearkened\nunto the voice of Jonathan: and Saul sware, As the Lord liveth, he shall\nnot be slain.\" It is interesting as showing the utility of oaths that\nafter having thus sworn Saul was more determined than ever to kill\nDavid. To save his own life David fled to Naioth, and Saul sent there\nmessengers to arrest David; but three sets of the king's messengers\nhaving in turn all become prophets, Saul went himself, and the spirit of\nthe Lord came upon him also, and he stripped off his clothes and\nprophesied as hard as the rest, \"laying down naked all that day and all\nthat night.\"\n\nDavid lived in exile for some time in godly company, having collected\nround him every one that was in distress, and every one that was in\ndebt, and every one that was discontented. Saul made several fruitless\nattempts to effect his capture, with no better result than that he twice\nplaced himself in the power of David, who twice showed the mercy to a\ncruel king which he never conceded to an unoffending people. David\nhaving obtruded himself upon Achish, King of Gath, doubtful of his\nsafety, feigned madness to cover his retreat. He then lived a precarious\nlife, sometimes levying a species of black mail upon defenceless\nfarmers. Having applied to one farmer to make him some compensation for\npermitting the farm to go unrobbed, and his demand not having been\ncomplied with, David, who is a man after the heart of God of mercy,\nimmediately determined to murder the farmer and all his household for\ntheir wicked reluctance in submitting to his extortions. The wife of\nfarmer Nabal compromised the matter. David \"_accepted her person_\" and\nten days after Nabal was found dead in his bed. David afterwards went\nwith 600 men and lived under the protection of Achish, King of Gath, and\nwhile thus residing (being the anointed one of God who says, \"Thou shalt\nnot steal\") he robbed the inhabitants of the surrounding places. Being\nalso obedient to the statute, \"Thou shalt do no murder,\" he slaughtered,\nand left neither man nor woman alive to report his robberies to King\nAchish; and as he \"always walked in the ways\" of a God to whom \"lying\nlips are an abomination,\" he made false reports to Achish in relation to\nhis actions. Of course this was all for the glory of God, whose ways are\nnot as our ways. Soon the Philistines were engaged in another of the\nconstantly recurring conflicts with the Israelites. Who offered them the\nhelp of himself and hand? Who offered to make war on his own countrymen?\nDavid, the man after God's own heart, who obeyed God's statutes and who\nwalked in his ways, to do only that which was right in the sight of God.\nThe Philistines rejected the traitor's aid, and prevented the\nconsummation of this baseness. While David was making this unpatriotic\nproffer of his services to the Philistines, his own city of Ziglag was\ncaptured by the Amalekites, who were doubtless endeavoring to avenge\nsome of the most unjustifiable robberies and murders perpetrated by\nDavid and his followers in their country. David's own friends evidently\nthought that this misfortune was a retribution for David's crimes, for\nthey spoke of stoning him. The Amalekites had captured and carried off\neverything, but they do not seem to have maltreated or killed any of\ntheir enemies. David was less merciful. He pursued them, recaptured the\nspoil, and spared not a man of them, save 400 who escaped on camels. In\nconsequence of the death of Saul, David was elevated to the throne of\nJudah, while Ishbosheth, a son of Saul, was made king of Israel. But\nIshbosheth having been assassinated, David slew the assassins, when\nthey, hoping for reward, brought him the news, and he reigned ultimately\nover Israel also.\n\nAs religious readers are doubtless aware, the Lord God of Israel, after\nthe time of Moses, usually dwelt on the top of an ark or box, between\ntwo figures of gold; and on one occasion David made a journey with his\nfollowers to Baal, to bring thence the ark of God. They placed it on a\nnew cart drawn by oxen. On the journey the oxen stumbled, and\nconsequently shook the cart. One of the drivers, whose name was Uzzah,\npossibly fearing that God might be tumbled to the ground, took hold of\nthe ark, apparently in order to steady it, and prevent it from\noverturning. God, who is a God of love, was much displeased that any one\nshould presume to do any such act of kindness, and killed Uzzah on the\nspot as a punishment for his sin. This shows that if a man sees the\nChurch of God tumbling down, he should never try to prop it up; if it be\nnot strong enough to save itself, the sooner it falls the better for\nhumankind--that is, if they keep away from it while it is falling. David\nwas much displeased that the Lord had killed Uzzah; in fact, David seems\nto have wished for a monopoly of slaughter, and always manifested\ndispleasure when any killing was done unauthorised by himself. Being\ndispleased, David would not take the ark to Jerusalem, but left it in\nthe house of Obed Edom; then, as the Lord proved more kind to Obed Edom\nthan he had done to Uzzah, David determined to bring the ark away, and\ndid so, dancing before the ark in a state of semi-nudity, for which he\nwas reproached by Michal. Lord Campbell's Act is intended to hinder the\npublication of indecencies, but the pages of the Book which the law\naffirms to be God's most holy word do not come within the scope of the\nAct, and lovers of obscene language may therefore have legal\ngratification so long as the Bible shall exist. The God of Israel, who\nhad been leading a wandering life for many years, and who had \"walked in\na tent and in a tabernacle,\" and \"from tent to tent,\" and \"from one\ntabernacle to another,\" and \"who had not dwelt in any house\" since the\ntime that he brought the Israelites out of Egypt, was offered \"an house\nfor him to dwell in,\" but he declined to accept it during the lifetime\nof David, although he promised to permit the son of David to erect him\nsuch an abode. David being now a powerful monarch, and having many wives\nand concubines, saw one day the beautiful wife of one of his soldiers.\nTo see with this licentious monarch was to crave for the gratification\nof his lust. The husband Uriah was fighting for the king, yet David was\nbase enough to steal his wife's virtue during Uriah's absence in the\nfield of battle. \"Thou shalt not commit adultery\" was one of the\ncommandments, yet we are told by God of this David, that he was one \"who\nkept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart to do only\nthat which was right in mine eyes\" (1 Kings, xiv, 8). David having\nseduced the wife, sent for her husband, wishing to make him condone his\nwife's dishonor. In modern England under a Stuart or a Brunswick, Uriah\nmight have become a Marquis or a Baron. Some hold that virtue in rags is\nless worth than vice when coro-neted. Uriah would not be thus tricked,\nand David, the pious David, coolly planned, and without mercy caused to\nbe executed, the treacherous murder of Uriah. God is all-just; and David\nhaving committed adultery and murder, God punished and killed an\ninnocent child, which had no part or share in David's crime, and never\nchose that it should be born from the womb of Bathsheba. After this king\nDavid was even more cruel and merciless than before. Previously he had\nsystematically slaughtered the inhabitants of Moab, now he sawed people\nwith saws, cut them with harrows and axes, and made them pass through\nbrick-kilns. Yet of this man, God said he \"did that which was right in\nmine eyes.\" So bad a king, so treacherous a man, a lover so inconstant,\na husband so adulterous, was of course a bad father, having bad\nchildren. We are little surprised, therefore, to read that his son Amnon\nrobbed of her virtue his own sister, David's daughter Tamar, and that\nAm-non was afterwards slain by his own brother, David's son Absalom, and\nwe are scarcely astonished that Absalom himself, on the house-top, in\nthe sight of all Israel, should complete his father's shame by an act\nworthy a child of God's select people. Yet these are God's chosen race,\nand this is the family of the man \"who walked in God's ways all the days\nof his life.\"\n\nGod, who is all-wise and all-just, and who is not a man that he should\nrepent, repented that he had made Saul king because Saul spared one man.\nIn the reign of David the same good God sent a famine for three years on\nthe descendants of Abraham, and upon being asked his reason for thus\nstarving his chosen ones, the reply of the Deity was that he sent the\nfamine on the subjects of David because Saul slew the Gibeonites.\nSatisfactory reason!--because Oliver Cromwell slew the Royalists, God\nwill punish the subjects of Charles the Second. One reason is, to\nprofane eyes, equivalent to the other, but a bishop or even a rural dean\nwould soon show how remarkably God's justice was manifested. David was\nnot behindhand in justice. He had sworn to Saul that he would not cut\noff his seed--i.e., that he would not destroy Saul's family. He\ntherefore took two of Saul's sons, and five of Saul's grandsons, and\ngave them up to the Gibeonites, who hung them. Strangely wonderful are\nthe ways of the Lord! Saul slew the Gibeonites, therefore years\nafterwards God starves Judah. The Gibeonites hang men who have nothing\nto do with the crime of Saul, except that they are his descendants, and\nthen we are told \"the Lord was intreated for the land.\" The anger of the\nLord being kindled against Israel, he, wanting some excuse for punishing\nthe descendants of Jacob, moved David to number his people. The\nChronicles say that the tempter was Satan, and pious people may thus\nlearn what there is of distinction between God and Devil. Philosophers\nwould urge that both personifications are founded in the ignorance of\nthe masses, and the continuance of the myth will cease with the\ncredulousness of the people. David caused a census to be taken of the\ntribes of Israel and Judah. There is a trival disagreement of about\n270,000 soldiers between Samuel and Chronicles, but readers must not\nallow so slight an inaccuracy as this to stand between them and heaven.\nWhat are 270,000 men when looked at prayerfully? That any doubt should\narise is to a devout mind at the same time profane and preposterous.\nStatisticians suggest that 1,570,000 soldiers form a larger army than\nthe Jews are likely to have possessed; but if God is omnipotent, there\nis no reason to limit his power of miraculously increasing or decreasing\nthe armament of the Jewish nation. David, it seems, did wrong in\nnumbering his people, but we are never told that he did wrong in robbing\nor murdering their neighbors, or in pillaging peaceful agriculturists.\nDavid said: \"I have sinned,\" and for this an all-merciful God brought a\npestilence on the people, and murdered 70,000 Israelites, for an offence\nwhich their ruler had committed. The angel who was engaged in this\nterrible slaughter stood somewhere between heaven and earth, and\nstretched forth his hand with a drawn sword to destroy Jerusalem itself;\nbut even the bloodthirsty Deity of the Bible \"repented him of the evil,\"\nand said to the angel: \"It is enough.\" Many volumes might be written to\nanswer the enquiries--where did the angel stand, and on what? Of what\nmetal was the sword, and where was it made? As it was a drawn one, where\nwas the scabbard? and did the angel wear a sword-belt? Examined in a\npious frame of mind, much holy instruction may be derived from the\nattempt to solve these solemn problems.\n\nDavid now grows old and weak, and at last his death-hour comes. Oh! for\nthe dying words of the Psalmist! What pious instruction shall we derive\nfrom the death-bed scene of the man after God's own heart! Listen to the\nlast words of Judah's expiring monarch. You who have been content with\nthe pious frauds and forgeries perpetrated with reference to the\ndeath-beds and dying words of the great, the generous, the witty\nVoltaire; the manly, the self-denying, the incorruptible Thomas Paine;\nthe humane, simple, child-like man, yet mighty poet, Shelley--you who\nhave turned away from these with unwarranted horror--come with me to the\ndeath-couch of the special favorite of God. Bathsheba's child stands by\nhis side. Does any thought of the murdered Uriah rack old David's brain,\nor has a tardy repentance effaced the bloody stain from the pages of his\nmemory? What does the dying David say? Does he talk of cherubs, angels\nand heavenly choirs? Nay, none of these things passes his lips. Does he\nmake a confession of his crime-stained life, and beg his son to be a\nbetter king, a truer man, a more honest citizen, a wiser father? Nay,\nnot so--no word of sorrow, no sign of regret, no expression of remorse\nor repentance escapes his lips. What does the dying David say? This foul\nmonster whom God has made king; this redhanded robber, whose life has\nbeen guarded by \"our Father which art in Heaven;\" this perjured king,\nwhose lying lips have found favor in the sight of God, and who, when he\ndies, is safe for Heaven. It is written: \"There shall be more joy in\nheaven before God over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and\nnine righteous men.\" Does David repent? Nay, like the ravenous wolf,\nwhich, tasting blood, is made more eager for the prey, he too yearns for\nblood; and with his dying breath begs his son to bring the grey hairs of\ntwo old men down to the grave with blood. And this is God's anointed\nking, the chief one of God's chosen people.\n\nThe learned and pious Puffendorf explains that David having only sworn\nnot himself to kill Shimei (1 Kings, ii, 8) there was no perjury on the\npart of David in persuading Solomon to contrive the killing from which\nDavid had sworn to personally abstain.\n\nDavid is alleged to have written several Psalms, but of this there is\nlittle evidence beyond pious assertion. In one of these the psalmist\naddresses God in pugilistic phraseology, praising Deity that he had\nsmitten all his enemies on the cheek-bone, and broken the teeth of the\nungodly. In these days when \"muscular Christianity\" is not without\nadvocates, the metaphor which presents God as a sort of magnificent\nBenicia Boy may find many admirers. In the eighteenth Psalm, David\ndescribes God as with \"smoke coming out of his nostrils and fire out of\nhis mouth,\" by which \"coals were kindled.\" He represents God as coming\ndown from heaven, and says: \"he rode upon a cherub.\" The learned\nParkhurst gives a likeness of a one-legged, four-winged, four-faced\nanimal, part lion, part bull, part eagle, part man, and if a cloven foot\nbe any criterion, part devil also. This description, if correct, will\ngive some idea to the faithful of the wonderful character of the\nequestrian feats of Deity. In addition to a cherub, God has other means\nof conveyance at his disposal, if David be not in error when he says\nthat the chariots of the Lord are 20,000.\n\nIn Psalm xxvi the writer adds hypocrisy in addition to his other vices.\nHe has the impudence to tell God that he has been a man of integrity and\ntruth, and that he has avoided evil-doers, although, if we are to\nbelieve Psalm xxxviii, the hypocrite must have already been subject to a\nloathsome disease--a penalty consequent on his licentiousness and\ncriminality. In another Psalm, David the liar tells God that \"he that\ntelleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.\" To understand David's pious\nnature we must study his prayer to God against an enemy (Psalm cix,\n6-14): \"Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right\nhand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer\nbecome sin. Let his days be few: and let another take his office. Let\nhis children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be\ncontinually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of\ntheir desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and\nlet the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy\nunto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children. Let\nhis posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name\nbe blotted out. Let the iniquity of his fathers be remembered with the\nLord; and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.\"\n\nA full consideration of the life of David must give great help to the\northodox in promoting and sustaining faith. While spoken of by Deity as\nobeying all the statutes and keeping all the commandments, we are\nastonished to find that murder, theft, lying, adultery, licentiousness,\nand treachery are amongst the crimes which may be laid to his charge.\nDavid was a liar, God is a God of truth; David was merciless, God is\nmerciful, and of long suffering; David was a thief, God says: \"Thou\nshalt not steal;\" David was a murderer, God says: \"Thou shalt do no\nmurder; \"David took the wife of Uriah, and \"accepted\" the wife of Nabal,\nGod says: \"Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife.\" Yet,\nnotwithstanding all these things, David was the man after God's own\nheart!\n\nHad this Jewish monarch any redeeming traits in his character? Was he a\ngood citizen? If so, the Bible has carefully concealed every action\nwhich would entitle him to such an appellation. Was he a kind and\nconstant husband? To whom? To which of his many wives and mistresses?\nWas he grateful to those who aided him in his hour of need? Rather, like\nthe serpent which, half-frozen by the wayside, is warmed into new life\nin the traveller's breast, and then treacherously stings his succorer\nwith his poisoned fangs, so David robbed and murdered the friends and\nallies of the King of Gath, who afforded him protection against the\npursuit of Saul. Does his patriotism outshine his many vices? Does his\nlove of country efface his many misdoings? Not even this. David was a\nheartless traitor who volunteered to serve against his own countrymen,\nand would have done so had not the Philistines rejected his treacherous\nhelp. Was he a good king? So say the priesthood now; but where is the\nevidence of his virtue? His crimes brought plague and pestilence on his\nsubjects, and his reign is a continued succession of wars, revolts, and\nassassinations, plottings and counterplots.\n\nThe life of David is a dark blot on the page of human history, fit in\ncompanionship for the biographies of Constantine the Great and Henry\nVIII; but it is through David that the genealogies of Jesus are traced,\nand without David there would be no Christian faith.\n\n\n\n\nA NEW LIFE OF JONAH\n\n\nJONAH was the son of Amittai of Gath-hepher, which place divines\nidentify with Gittah-hepher of the Children of Zebulun. Dr. Inman says\nthat Gath-hepher means \"the village of the Cow's tail,\" but he also says\nit means \"the Heifer's trough.\" Gesenius translates it \"the wine-press\nof the well.\" Bible Dictionaries say that Gath-hepher is the same as\nel-Meshhad, and affirm that the tomb of Jonah was \"long shown on a rocky\nhill near the town.\" The blood of Saint Januarius is shown in Naples to\nthis day. Nothing is known of the sex or life of Amittai, except that\nJonah was his or her son, and that Gath-hepher was her or his place of\nresidence; but to a true believer these two facts, even though standing\nutterly alone, will be pregnant with instruction. To the sceptic and\nrailer, Amittai is as an unknown quantity in an algebraic problem. Jonah\nwas not a very common proper name, [--Hebrew--] means a dove, and some\nderive it from the Arabic root--to be weak, gentle:--so that one meaning\nof Jonah, according to Gesenius, would be feeble, gentle bird. The\nProphet Jonah was by no means a feeble, gentle bird; he was rather a\nbird of pray. Certainly it was his intention to become a bird of\npassage. The date of the birth of Jonah is not given; the margin of my\nBible dates the book of Jonah B.C. cir. 862, and my Bible Dictionary\nfixes the date of the matter to which the book relates at \"about B.C.\n830.\" If from any reason either of these dates should be disagreeable to\nthe reader, he can choose any other date without fear of anachronism.\nJonah was a prophet; so is Dr. Cumming, so is Brigham Young; there is no\nevidence that Jonah followed any other profession. Jonah's profit\nprobably hardly equalled that realised by the Archbishop of Canterbury,\nbut he had money enough to pay his fare \"from the presence of the Lord\"\nto Tarshish. The exact distance of this voyage may be easily calculated\nby remembering that the Lord is omnipresent, and then measuring from his\nboundary to Tarshish. The fare may be worked out by the differential\ncalculus after evening prayer.\n\nThe word of the Lord came to Jonah; when or how the word came the text\ndoes not record, and to any devout mind it is enough to know that it\ncame. The first time in the world's history that the word of the Lord\never came to anybody, may be taken to be when Adam and Eve \"heard the\nvoice of the Lord\" \"walking in the Garden\" of Eden \"in the cool of the\nday.\" Between the time of Adam and Jonah a long period had elapsed; but\nhuman nature, having had many prophets, was very wicked. The Lord wanted\nJonah to go with a message to Nineveh. Nineveh was apparently a city of\nthree days' journey in size. Allowing twenty miles for each day, this\nwould make the city about 60 miles across, or about 180 miles in\ncircumference. Some faint idea may be formed of this vast city, by\nadding together London, Paris, and New York, and then throwing in\nLiverpool, Manchester, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Marseilles, Naples, and\nSpurgeon's Tabernacle. Jonah knowing that the Lord did not always carry\nout his threats or perform his promises, did not wish to go to Nineveh,\nand \"rose up to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord.\" The\nTarshish for which Jonah intended his flight was either in Spain or\nIndia or elsewhere. I am inclined, after deep reflection and examination\nof the best authorities, to give the preference to the third-named\nlocality. When Cain went \"out of the presence of the Lord,\" he went into\nthe Land of Nod, but whether Tarshish is in that or some other country\nthere is no evidence to determine. To get to Tarshish, Jonah--instead of\ngoing to the port of Tyre, which was the nearest to his reputed\ndwelling, and by far the most commodious--went to the more distant and\nless convenient port of Joppa, where he found a ship going to Tarshish;\n\"so he paid the fare thereof, and went down into it, to go with them\ninto Tarshish, from the presence of the Lord.\" Jonah was, however, very\nshortsighted. Just as in the old Greek mythology, winds and waves are\nmade warriors for the gods, so the God of the Hebrews \"sent out a great\nwind into the sea, and there was a mighty tempest in the sea, so that\nthe ship was like to be broken.\" Luckily she was not an old leaky\nvessel, overladen and heavily insured; one which the sanctimonious\nowners desired to see at the bottom, and which the captain did not care\nto save. Christianity and civilisation were yet to bring forth that\nglorious resultant, a pious English shipowner, with a newly-painted,\nbut, under the paint, a worn and rusty iron vessel, long abandoned as\nunfit, but now fresh-named, and so insured that Davy Jones's locker\nbecomes the most welcome haven of refuge. \"The mariners were afraid...\nand cast forth the wares\" into the sea to lighten the ship. But where\nwas Jonah during this noise? Men trampling on deck, hoarse and harsh\nwords of command, and the fury of the storm troubled not our prophet.\nSea-sickness, which spares not the most pious, had no effect upon him.\n\"Jonah was gone down into the sides of the ship, and he lay and was fast\nasleep.\" The battering of the waves against the sides disturbed not his\ndevout slumbers; the creaking of the vessel's timbers spoiled not his\nrepose. Despite the pitching and rolling of the vessel Jonah \"was fast\nasleep.\" Had he been in the comfortable berth of a Cunarder, it would\nnot have been easy to sleep through such a storm. Had he been in the\nhold of a smaller vessel on the Bay of Biscay, finding himself now with\nhis head lower than his heels, and now with his body playing hide and\nseek amongst loose articles of cargo, it would have required great\nabsence of mind to prevent waking. Had he only been on an Irish steamer\ncarrying cattle on deck, between Bristol and Cork, with a portion of the\nbulwarks washed away, and a squad of recruits \"who cried every man to\nhis God,\" he would have found the calmness of undisturbed slumber\ndifficult. But Jonah was on board the Joppa and Tarshish boat, and he\n\"was fast asleep.\" As the crew understood the theory of storms, they of\ncourse knew that when there is a tempest at sea it is sent by God,\nbecause he is offended by some one on board the vessel. Modern\nscientists scout this notion, and pretend to track storm waves across\nthe world, and to affix storm signals in order to warn mariners. They\nactually profess to predict atmospheric changes, and to explain how such\nchanges take place. Church clergymen know how futile science is, and how\npotent prayers are, for vessels at sea. The men on the Joppa vessel\nsaid, \"every one to his fellow, Come, and lets us cast lots, that we may\nknow for whose cause this evil is upon us. So they cast lots, and the\nlot fell upon Jonah.\" It is always a grave question in sacred\nmetaphysics as to whether God directed Jonah's lot, and, if yes, whether\nthe casting of lots is analogous to playing with loaded dice. The Bishop\nof Lincoln, who understands how far cremation may render resurrection\nawkward, is the only divine capable of thoroughly resolving this\nproblem. For ordinary Christians it is enough to know that the lot fell\nupon Jonah.\n\nBefore the crew commenced casting lots to find out Jonah, they had cast\nlots of their wares overboard, so that when the lot fell on Jonah it was\nmuch lighter than it would have been had the lot fallen upon him during\nhis sleep. Still, if not stunned by the lot which fell upon him, he\nstood convicted as the cause of the tempest:--and the crew \"Then said\nthey unto him, Tell us, we pray thee, for whose cause this evil is upon\nus; What is thine occupation? and whence comest thou? what is thy\ncountry? and of what people art thou? And he said unto them, I am an\nHebrew; and I fear the Lord, the God of heaven, which hath made the sea\nand the dry land. Then were the men exceedingly afraid, and said unto\nhim, Why hast thou done this? For the men knew that he fled from the\npresence of the Lord, because he had told them. Then said they unto him,\nWhat shall we do unto thee, that the sea may be calm unto us? for the\nsea wrought, and was tempestuous. And he said unto them, Take me up, and\ncast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you; for I\nknow that for my sake this great tempest is upon you. Nevertheless the\nmen rowed hard to bring it to the land; but they could not; for the sea\nwrought, and was tempestuous against them. Wherefore they cried unto the\nLord, and said, We beseech thee, O Lord, we beseech thee, let us not\nperish for this man's life, and lay not upon us innocent blood: for\nthou, O Lord, hast done as it pleased thee. So they took up Jonah, and\ncast him forth into the sea: and the sea ceased from her raging.\" No pen\ncan improve this story; it is so simple, so natural, so child-like.\nEvery one has heard of casting oil on troubled waters. It stands to\nreason that a fat prophet would produce the same effect. What a striking\nillustration of the power of faith it will be when bishops leave their\nown sees in order to be in readiness to calm an ocean storm. Or if not a\nbishop, at least a curate; and even a lean curate; for with sea air, a\nravenous appetite, and a White Star Line cabin bill of fare of\nbreakfast, lunch, dinner, tea, and supper, fatness would soon be arrived\nat. In the interests of science I should like to see an episcopal\nprophet occasionally thrown overboard during a storm. The experiment\nmust in any case be advantageous to humanity; should the tempest be\nstilled, then the ocean would be indeed the broad way, not leading to\ndestruction; should the storm not be conquered, there would even then be\npromotion in the Church, and happiness to many at the mere cost of one\nbishop. \"Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah.\"\nJesus says the fish was a whale. A whale would have needed preparation,\nand the statement has an air of vraisemblance. The fish did swallow\nJonah. \"Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights.\"\nPoor Jonah! and poor fish! Poor Jonah, for it can scarcely be pleasant,\neven if you escape suffocation, to be in a fish's belly with too much to\ndrink, and no room to swallow, and your solids either raw or too much\ndone. Poor fish! for even after preparation it must be disagreeable to\nhave one's poor stomach turned into a sort of prayer meeting. Jonah was\ntaken in; but the fish found that taking in a parson was a feat neither\neasy nor healthy. After Jonah had uttered guttural sounds from inside\nthe fish's belly for three days and three nights, the Lord spake unto\nthe fish, and the fish was sick of Jonah, \"and it vomited out Jonah upon\nthe dry land.\" Some sceptics urged that a whale could not have swallowed\nJonah; but once, at Tod-morden, a Church of England clergyman, who had\nbeen curate to the Reverend Charles Kingsley, got rid of this as an\nobjection by assuring us that he should have equally believed the story\nhad it stated that Jonah had swallowed the whale. And then the word of\nthe Lord came to Jonah once more, and this time Jonah obeyed. He was to\ntake God's message to the citizens of Nineveh. \"And Jonah began to enter\ninto the city a day's journey, and he cried, and said, Yet forty days,\nand Nineveh shall be overthrown.\" Should Jonah come to London in the\npresent day with a similar message, he would meet scant courtesy from\nour clergy. A foreigner, and using a strange tongue, he would probably\nfind himself in Colney Hatch or Hanwell. To come to England in the name\nof Mahomet or Buddha, or Osiris or Jupiter, would have little effect.\nBut the Ninevites do not seem even to have raised the question that the\nGod of the Hebrews was not their God. They listened to Jonah, and \"the\npeople of Nineveh believed God, and proclaimed a fast, and put on\nsackcloth, from the greatest of them even to the least of them. For word\ncame unto the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, and he laid\nhis robe from him, and covered him with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. And\nhe caused it to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the\ndecree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast,\nherd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water: but\nlet man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God:\nyea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence\nthat is in their hands.\" The consumption of sackcloth for covering every\nman and beast must have been rather large, and the Nineveh sackcloth\nmanufacturers must have had enormous stocks on hand to supply the sudden\ndemand. The city article of the _Nineveh Times_, if such a paper\nexisted, would probably have described \"sackcloth firm, with a tendency\nto rise.\" Man and beast, all dressed in or covered with sackcloth! It\nwould be sometimes difficult to distinguish a Ninevite man from a\nNinevite beast, the dress being similar for all. This is a difficulty,\nhowever, other nations have shared with the Ninevites. Men and women may\nsometimes be seen in London dressed in broadcloth and satins, and,\nthough their clothing is distinguishable enough, their conduct is\nsometimes so beastly that the naked beasts are the more respectable.\n\nNineveh was frightened, and Nineveh moaned, and Nineveh determined to do\nwrong no more. \"And God saw their works, that they turned from their\nevil way; and God repented of the evil that he had said that he would do\nunto them; and he did it not.\" God, the unchangeable, changed his\npurpose, and spared the city, which in his infinite wisdom he had\ndoomed. \"But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.\" It\nwas enough to [vex] a saint to be sent to prophesy the destruction of\nthe city in six weeks, and then nothing at all to happen. \"And he prayed\nunto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying,\nwhen I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish.\"\nJonah did not like to be a discredited prophet, and cried, \"Therefore\nnow, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for\nme to die than to live. Then said the Lord, Doest thou well to be\nangry?\" Jonah, knowing the Lord, was still curious and uncertain as well\nas angry. He was a prophet and a sceptic. \"So Jonah went out of the\ncity, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a\nboot[h], and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would\nbecome of the city. And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to\ncome up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver\nhim from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd. But God\nprepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the\ngourd that it withered. And it came to pass, when the sun did arise,\nthat God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head\nof Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is\nbetter for me to die than to live. And God said to Jonah, Doest thou\nwell to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even\nunto death. Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the\nwhich thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a\nnight, and perished in a night: And should not I spare Nineveh, that\ngreat city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot\ndiscern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much\ncattle?\" The Lord seems to have overlooked that Jonah had more pity on\nhimself than the gourd, whose only value to him was as a shade from the\nsun. Jonah, too, might have reminded the Lord that there were more than\n120,000 persons similarly situated at the deluge and at the slaughter of\nthe Midianites, and that the \"much cattle\" had never theretofore been\nreckoned in the divine decrees of mercy.\n\nHere ends the new life of Jonah. Of the prophet's childhood we know\nnothing; of his middle age no more than we have here related; of his old\nage and death we have nothing to say. It is enough for good Christians\nto know that \"Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's\nbelly; so shall the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the\nheart of the earth.\" According to Jesus the story of Jonah is as true as\nGospel.\n\n\n\n\nWHO WAS JESUS CHRIST?\n\n\nMANY persons will consider the question one to which the Gospels give a\nsufficient answer, and that no further inquiry is necessary. But while\nthe general Christian body affirm that Jesus was God incarnate on earth,\nthe Unitarian Christians, less in numerical strength, but numbering a\nlarge proportion of the more intelligent and humane, absolutely deny his\ndivinity; the Jews, of whom he is alleged to have been one, do not\nbelieve in him at all; and the enormous majority of the inhabitants of\nthe earth have never accepted the Gospels. Even in the earliest ages of\nthe Christian Church heretics were found, amongst Christians themselves,\nwho denied that Jesus had ever existed in the flesh. Under these\ncircumstances the most pious should concede that it is well to prosecute\nthe inquiry to the uttermost, that their faith may rest on sure\nfoundations. The history of Jesus Christ is contained in four books or\ngospels; outside these it cannot be pretended that there is any reliable\nnarrative of his life. We know not with any certainty, and have now no\nmeans of knowing, when, where, or by whom these gospels were written.\nThe name at the head of each gospel affords no clue to the real writer.\nBefore A.D. 160, no author mentions any Gospels by Matthew, Mark, Luke,\nor John, and there is no sufficient evidence to identify the Gospels we\nhave with even the writings to which Irenaeus refers towards the close\nof the second century. The Church has provided us with an author for\neach Gospel, and some early Fathers have argued that there ought to be\nfour Gospels, because there are four seasons, four principal points to\nthe compass, and four corners to the earth. Bolder speculators affirm\ntwelve apostles because there are twelve signs of the Zodiac. With\nregard to the Gospel first in order, divines disagree as to the language\nin which it was written. Some allege that the original was in Hebrew,\nothers deny that our Greek version has any of the characters of a\ntranslation.\n\nWe neither know the hour, nor day, nor month, nor year, of Jesus's\nbirth; divines generally agree that he was not born on Christmas Day,\nand yet on that day the anniversary of his birth is observed. The Oxford\nChronology places the matter in no clearer light, and more than thirty\nlearned authorities give a period of over seven years' difference in\ntheir reckoning. The place of his birth is also uncertain. The Jews, in\nthe presence of Jesus, reproached him that he ought to have been born at\nBethlehem, and he never replied, \"I was born there.\" (John vii, 41, 42,\n52.)\n\nJesus was the son of David, the son of Abraham (Matthew i), from whom\nhis descent is traced through Isaac--born of Sarai (whom the writer of\nthe epistle to Galatians [iv, 24], says was a covenant and not a\nwoman)--and ultimately through Joseph, who was not only not his father,\nbut is not shown to have had any kind of relationship to him, and\nthrough whom therefore the genealogy should not be traced. There are two\ngenealogies in the Gospels which contradict each other, and these in\npart may be collated with the Old Testament genealogy, which differs\nfrom both. The genealogy of Matthew is self-contradictory, counts\nthirteen names as fourteen, and omits the names of three kings. Matthew\nsays Abiud was the son of Zorobabel (i, 13). Luke says Zorobabel's son\nWas Rhesa (iii, 27). The Old Testament contradicts both, and gives\nMeshullam and Hananiah and Shelomith, their sister (1 Chron. iii, 19),\nas the names of Zorobabel's children. The reputed father of Jesus,\nJoseph, had two fathers, one named Jacob, the other Heli. The divines\nsuggest that Heli was the father of Mary, by reading the word \"Mary\" in\nLuke iii, 23, in lieu of \"Joseph,\" and the word \"daughter\" in lieu of\n\"son,\" thus correcting the evident blunder made by inspiration. The\nbirth of Jesus was miraculously announced to Mary and to Joseph by\nvisits of an angel, but they so little regarded the miraculous\nannunciation that they marvelled soon after at much less wonderful\nthings spoken by Simeon. Jesus was the son of God, or God manifest in\nthe flesh, and his birth was first discovered by some wise men or\nastrologers, a class described in the Bible as an abomination in God's\nsight. These men saw his star in the East, but it did not tell them\nmuch, for they were apparently obliged to ask information from Herod the\nKing. Herod in turn inquired of the chief priests and scribes; and it is\nevident Jeremiah was right if he said, \"The prophets prophesy falsely,\nand the priests bear rule by their means,\" for these chief priests\neither misread the prophets, or misquoted the scripture which is claimed\nto be a revelation from God, and invented a false prophecy (Matthew ii,\n5, 6, c.f. (Micah v, 2), by omitting a few words from, and adding a few\nwords to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star--after the wise\nmen knew where to go, and no longer required its aid--led and went\nbefore them, until it came and stood over where the young child was.\nThis story will be better understood if the reader will walk out some\nclear night, notice a star, and then try to fix the one house it will be\nexactly over. The writer of the Third Gospel, silent on the star story,\nspeaks of an angel who tells some shepherds of the miraculous; but this\ndoes not appear to have happened in the reign of Herod. After the wise\nmen had left Jesus, an angel warned Joseph to flee with Jesus and Mary\ninto Egypt; and Joseph did fly, and remained there with the young child\nand his mother until the death of Herod; and this it is alleged was done\nto fulfil a prophecy. The words (Hosea xi, 1) are not prophetic and have\nno reference whatever to Jesus. The Jesus of the Third Gospel never went\ninto Egypt at all in his childhood. When Jesus began to be about thirty\nyears of age, he was baptised by John in the River Jordan. John, who\nknew him, according to the First Gospel, forbade him directly he saw\nhim; but, according to the Fourth Gospel, he knew him not, and had,\ntherefore, no occasion to forbid him. God is an \"invisible spirit,\" whom\nno man hath seen (John i, 18), or can see (Exodus xxxiii, 20); but the\nman John saw the spirit of God descending like a dove. God is\neverywhere, but at that time was in heaven, from whence he said, \"This\nis my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\" Although John heard this\nfrom God's own mouth, he did not always act as if he believed it, but\nsome time after sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were\nreally the Christ (Matthew xi, 2, 3). Immediately after the baptism,\nJesus was led up of the spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the\nDevil. Jesus fasted forty days and forty nights, and in those days he\ndid eat nothing. Moses twice fasted that period. Such fasts are nearly\nmiraculous. The modern fasting men, and the Hindoo fasters, only show\nthat under very abnormal conditions, long abstinence from food is\npossible. Absolutely miraculous events are events which never happened\nin the past, do not take place in the present, and never will occur in\nthe future. Jesus, it is said, was God, and by his power as God fasted.\nOn the hypothesis of his divinity, it is difficult to understand how he\nbecame hungry. When hungry the Devil tempted Jesus by offering him\nstones, and asking him to make them bread. Stones offered to a hungry\nman for bread-making hardly afford a probable temptation. Which\ntemptation came next is a matter of doubt. Matthew and Luke relate the\nstory in different order. According to one, the Devil next taketh Jesus\nto the pinnacle of the temple and tempts him to throw himself to the\nbottom, by quoting Scripture that angels should bear him in their arms.\nJesus either disbelieved this Scripture, or remembered that the Devil,\nlike other pillars of the Church, grossly misquoted to suit his purpose,\nand the temptation failed. The Devil then took Jesus to an exceeding\nhigh mountain, from whence he showeth him all the kingdoms of the world\nand the glory thereof, in a moment of time. It is urged that this did\nnot include a view of the antipodes, but only referred to the kingdoms\nthen known; even then it must have been a long look from Judea to China.\nThe mountain must have been very high--much higher than the diameter of\nthe earth. Origen, a learned and pious holy father, suggests that no man\nin his senses will believe this to have really happened. If Origen had\nto defend his language before a modern judge of the type of Mr. Justice\nNorth, the Christian father would have sore risk of Holloway Gaol. The\nDevil offered Jesus--who it is declared was one with God, and therefore\nomnipotent--all the kingdoms of the world, if he, Jesus the omnipotent\nGod, would fall down and worship his own creature the Devil. Some object\nthat if God is the creator and omnipotent ruler of the world, then the\nDevil would have no control over the kingdoms of the world, and that the\noffer could be no temptation, as it was made to Jesus, who was God\nomnipotent and all-wise. Such objectors rely on natural reason.\n\nAfter the temptation Jesus worked many miracles, casting out devils and\notherwise doing marvels amongst the inhabitants of Judea, who seem as a\nbody to have been very unbelieving. If a second Jesus of Nazareth were\nin this heretical age to boast that he possessed the power of casting\nout devils, he would stand a fair chance of expiating his offence by a\nthree months' imprisonment with hard labor. It is true that the 72nd\nCanon of the Church of England recognises that ministers can cast out\ndevils, but forbids them to do this unless licensed by the Bishop \"under\npain of the imputation of imposture or cozenage.\" Now, if sick men have\na little wisdom, the physician is resorted to that he may cure the\ndisease. If men have much wisdom, they study physiology while they have\nhealth, in order to prevent sickness. In the time of the early\nChristians prayer and faith (James v, 14, 15) occupied the position\nsince usurped by medicine and experience. Men who had lost their senses\nin the time of Christ were regarded as attacked not by disease but by\nthe Devil. In the days of Jesus one spirit would make a man blind, or\ndeaf, or dumb: occasionally a number of devils would get into a man and\ndrive him mad. On one occasion Jesus met either one man (Mark v, 2) or\ntwo men (Matt. viii, 28), possessed with devils. The devils knew Jesus,\nand addressed him by name. Jesus, not so familiar with the imp or imps,\ninquired the name of the particular devil he was addressing. The answer,\ngiven in Latin, would induce a belief, possibly corroborated by the\nwritings of the monks, that devils communicated in that tongue. Jesus\nwanted to cast out the devils from the man; this they did not contest,\nbut they expressed a decided objection to being cast out of the country.\nA compromise was agreed to, and at their own request the devils were\ntransferred to a herd of swine. The swine ran into the sea and were\ndrowned. There is no record of any compensation to the owner.\n\nJesus fed large multitudes of people under circumstances of a most\nultra-thaumaturgic character. To the first book of Euclid is prefixed an\naxiom \"that the whole is greater than its part.\" John Wesley was wise if\nit be true that he eschewed mathematics lest it should lead him to\ninfidelity. If any man be irreligious enough to accept Euclid's axiom,\nhe will be compelled to reject the miraculous feeding of 5,000 people\nwith five loaves and two small fishes. The original difficulty of the\nmiracle, though not increased, is made hard to the common mind by the\nassertion that after the multitude had been fed, twelve basketsfull of\nfragments remained.\n\nJesus is related to have walked on the sea when it was very stormy, and\nwhen \"the sea arose by reason of a great wind that blew.\" Walking on the\nwater is a great feat even if the sea be calm, but when the waves run\nhigh it is still more wonderful.\n\nThe miracle of turning water into wine at Cana, in Galilee, is worthy\nattention, when considering the question, Who was Jesus Christ? Jesus\nand his disciples had been called to a marriage feast, and when there\nthe company fell short of wine. The mother of Jesus, to whom the\nCatholics offer worship, and to whom they pay great adoration, informed\nJesus of the deficiency, and was answered, \"Woman, what have I to do\nwith thee? mine hour is not yet come.\" His mother seemed to have\nexpected a miracle, yet in the Fourth Gospel the Cana wonder was the\nbeginning of miracle working by Jesus; the apocryphal gospels assert\nthat Jesus practised miracle working as a child. Jesus having obtained\nsix waterpots full of water, turned them into wine. Teetotallers who\ncannot believe God would specially provide means of drunkenness, urge\nthat this wine was not of intoxicating quality, though there is nothing\nin the text to justify their hypothesis. The curious connexion between\nthe phrase \"well drunk,\" and the time at which the miracle was\nperformed, would rather warrant the supposition that the guests were\nalready in such a state as to render it difficult for them to critically\nappreciate the new vintage. The moral effects of this miracle are not\neasily appreciable.\n\nShortly after this Jesus went to the temple with a scourge of small\ncords, and drove thereout the cattle dealers and money changers who had\nassembled there in the ordinary course of their business. The writer of\nthe Fourth Gospel places this event very early in the public life of\nJesus. The writer of the Third Gospel fixes the occurrence much later.\n\nJesus being hungry went to a fig-tree, to gather figs, though the season\nof figs was not yet come. Of course there were no figs upon the tree,\nand Jesus then caused the tree to wither away. This is specially\ninteresting as a problem for a true orthodox trinitarian who will\nbelieve--first, that Jesus was God, who made the tree, and prevented it\nfrom bearing figs; second, that God the all-wise, who is not subject to\nhuman passions, being hungry, went to the fig-tree, on which he knew\nthere could be no figs, expecting to find some there; third, that God\nthe all-just then punished the tree, because it did not bear figs in\nopposition to God's eternal ordination.\n\nJesus had a disciple named Peter, who, having much Christian faith, was\na great coward and denied his leader in his hour of need. Jesus though\npreviously aware that Peter would be a traitor, yet gave him the keys of\nthe kingdom of Heaven, and told him that whatsoever he bound on earth\nshould be bound in Heaven. Peter was to have denied Jests three times\nbefore the cock should crow (Matt. xxvi, 34). The cock crowed before\nPeter's second denial (Mark xiv, 68). Commentators urge that the words\nused do not refer to the crowing of any particular cock, but to a\nspecial hour of the morning called \"cock-crow.\" But if the Gospel be\ntrue, the explanation is false. Peter's denial becomes the more\nextraordinary when we remember that he had seen Moses, Jesus, and Elias\ntalking together, and had heard a voice from a cloud say, \"This is my\nbeloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.\" As Peter could thus deny Jesus\nafter having heard God vouch his divinity, and Peter not only escapes\npunishment, but gets the office of gatekeeper to Heaven, how much more\nshould those escape punishment and obtain reward, who only deny because\nthey cannot help it, and who have been left without any corroborative\nevidence of sight or hearing?\n\nThe Jesus of the First Gospel promised that, as Jonas was three days and\nthree nights in the whale's belly, so he (Jesus) would be three days and\nthree nights in the heart of the earth. Yet he was buried on Friday\nevening, and was out of the grave before Saturday night was over. Some\nsay that the Jews reckoned part of a day as a whole one.\n\nThe translators have made Jesus perform a curious equestrian feat on his\nentry into Jerusalem. The text (Matt. xxi, 7) says they \"brought the ass\nand the colt and put on them their clothes and set him thereon.\" This\ndoes not mean that he rode on both at one time; it only says so. On the\ncross the Jesus of the Four Gospels, who was God, cried out, \"My God, my\nGod, why hast thou forsaken me?\" God cannot forsake himself. Jesus was\nGod himself. Yet God forsook Jesus, and the latter cried out to know why\nhe was forsaken. Any able divine will explain that of course he knew,\nand that he was not forsaken. The explanation renders it difficult to\nbelieve the dying cry, and the passage becomes one of the mysteries of\nthe holy Christian religion, which, unless a man rightly believe,\n\"without doubt he shall perish everlastingly.\" At the crucifixion of\nJesus wonderful miracles took place \"The graves were opened, and many\nbodies of the saints which slept arose and came out of the grave after\nhis resurrection and appeared unto many.\" Which saints were these? They\n\"appeared unto many,\" but there is not the slightest evidence outside\nthe Bible that anyone ever saw them. Their \"bodies\" came out of the\ngraves. Do not the bodies of the saints decompose like those of ordinary\nhuman beings?\n\nJesus must have much changed in the grave, for his disciples did not\nknow him when he stood on the shore (John xxi, 4), and Mary, most\nattached to him, knew him not, but supposed that he was the gardener.\nAccording to the First Gospel, Jesus appeared to two women after his\nresurrection, and afterwards met eleven of his disciples by appointment\non a mountain in Galilee. When was this appointment made? The text on\nwhich divines rely is Matt. xxvi, 32; this makes no such appointment.\nAccording to the Second Gospel, he appeared first to one woman, and when\nshe told the disciples they did not believe it. Yet, on pain of\nindictment now and damnation hereafter, we are bound to unhesitatingly\naccept that which the disciples of Jesus rejected. By the Second Gospel\nwe learn that instead of the eleven going to Galilee after Jesus, he\ncame to them as they sat at meat. In the Third Gospel he first appeared\nto two of his disciples at Emmaus, and they did not know him until they\nhad been a long time in his company--it was evening before they\nrecognised him. Unfortunately, directly they knew him they did not see\nhim, for as soon as they knew him he vanished out of their sight. He\nimmediately afterwards appeared to the eleven at Jerusalem, and not at\nGalilee, as stated in the First Gospel. Jesus asked for some meat, and\nthe disciples gave him a portion of a broiled fish and of a honeycomb,\nand he did eat. Jesus was afterwards taken up into Heaven, a cloud\nreceived him, and he was missed. God is everywhere, and Heaven no more\nabove than below, but it is necessary we should believe that Jesus has\nascended into Heaven to sit on the right hand of God, who is infinite\nand has no right hand. Was Jesus Christ a man? If limited for our answer\nto the mere Gospel Jesus--surely not. His whole career is, on any\nliteral reading, simply a series of improbabilities or contradictions.\nWho was Christ? born of a virgin, and of divine parentage? So too were\nmany of the mythic Sungods and so was Krishna, whose story, similar in\nmany respects with that of Jesus, was current long prior to the\nChristian era.\n\nWas Jesus Christ man or myth? His story being fable, is the hero a\nreality? That a man named Jesus really lived and performed some special\nactions attracting popular attention, and thus became the centre for a\nhundred myths may well be true, but beyond this what is there of solid\nfact?\n\n\n\n\nWHAT DID JESUS TEACH?\n\n\nTHE language in which Jesus taught, has not been preserved to us. Who\nrecorded his actual words, or if any real record ever existed, is all\nmatter of guess. Who translated the words of Jesus into the Greek no one\nknows. In the compass of four pamphlets, attributed to four persons, of\nwhose connexion with the Gospels, as we have them, little or nothing\nwhatever can be ascertained, we have what are, by the orthodox, supposed\nto be the words in which Jesus actually taught. What did he teach?\nManly, self-reliant resistance of wrong, and practice of right? No; the\nkey-stone of his whole teaching may be found in the text: \"Blessed are\nthe poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.\" (Matthew v, 3)\nIs poverty of spirit the chief amongst virtues, that Jesus gives it\nprime place in his teachings? Is it even a virtue at all? Surely not.\nManliness of spirit, honesty of spirit, fulness of rightful purpose,\nthese are virtues; poverty of spirit is a crime. When men are poor in\nspirit, then the proud and haughty in spirit oppress them. When men are\ntrue in spirit and determined (as true men should be) to resist, and as\nfar as possible, prevent wrong, then is there greater opportunity for\npresent happiness, and, as even Christians ought to admit, no lesser\nfitness for the enjoyment of further happiness, in some may-be heaven.\nAre you poor in spirit, and are you smitten; in such case what did Jesus\nteach?--\"Unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the\nother.\" (Luke, vi, 29) Surely better to teach that \"he who courts\noppression shares the crime;\" and, if smitten once to take careful\nmeasure to prevent a future smiting. Jesus teaches actual invitation of\ninjury. Shelley breathed higher humanity:\n\n    \"Stand ye calm and resolute,\n    Like a forest close and mute,\n    With folded arms and looks, which are\n    Weapons of an unvanquished war.\"\n\nThere is a wide distinction between passive resistance to wrong, and\ncourting further injury at the hands of the wrongdoer.\n\nIn the teaching of Jesus, poverty of spirit is enforced to the fullest\nconceivable extent: \"Him that taketh away thy cloak, forbid not to take\nthy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee, and of him that\ntaketh away thy goods, ask them not again.\" (Luke vi, 29, 30) Poverty of\nperson, is the only possible sequence to this extraordinary\nmanifestation of poverty of spirit. Poverty of person is attended with\nmany unpleasantnesses; and Jesus, who knew that poverty would result\nfrom his teaching, says, as if he wished to keep the poor content\nthrough their lives with poverty, \"Blessed be ye poor, for yours is the\nkingdom of God.\" (Luke vi, 20) \"But woe unto you that are rich, for ye\nhave received your consolation.\" (Luke vi, 24) He pictures one in hell,\nwhose only related vice is that in life he was rich; and another in\nheaven, whose only related virtue is that in life he was poor (Luke xvi,\n19-31). He affirms it is more difficult for a rich man to get into\nheaven, than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (Luke xvii,\n25). The only intent of such teaching could be to induce the poor to\nremain content in this life, with the want and misery of their wretched\nstate in the hope of higher recompense in some future life. Is it good\nto be content with poverty? Is it not far better to investigate the\ncauses of poverty, with a view to its cure and prevention? The doctrine\nis most horrid which declares that the poor shall not cease from the\nface of the earth. Poor in spirit and poor in pocket, with no courage to\nwork for food, or money to purchase it, we might well expect to find the\nman with empty stomach also who held these doctrines; and what does\nJesus teach? \"Blessed are ye that hunger now, for ye shall be filled.\"\n(Luke vi, 21) He does not say when the filling shall take place. The\ndate is evidently postponed until men will have no stomachs to\nreplenish? It is not in this life that the hunger is to be sated. \"Woe\nunto you that are full, for ye shall hunger.\" (Luke vi, 25) It would but\nlittle advantage the hungry man to bless him by filling him, if a curse\nawaited the completion of his repast. Craven in spirit, with an empty\npurse and hungry mouth--what next? The man who has not manliness enough\nto prevent wrong, will probably bemoan his hard fate, and cry bitterly\nthat sore are the misfortunes he endures. And what does Jesus teach?\n\"Blessed are ye that weep now, for ye shall laugh.\" (Luke vi, 21) Is\nthis true, and, if true, when shall the laughter come? \"Blessed are they\nthat mourn, for they shall be comforted.\" (Matthew v, 4) Aye, but when?\nNot while they mourn and weep. Weeping for the past is vain: a deluge of\ntears will not wash away its history. Weeping for the present is worse\nthan vain--it obstructs your sight. In each minute of your life the\naforetime future is present born, and you need dry and keen eyes to give\nit and yourself a safe and happy deliverance. When shall they that mourn\nbe comforted? Are slaves that weep salt tear-drops on their chains\ncomforted in their weeping. Each pearly overflowing as it falls rusts\nmind, as well as fetter. Ye who are slaves and weep, will never be\ncomforted until you dry your eyes, and nerve your arms, and, in the\nplenitude of manliness:\n\n    \"Shake your chains to earth like dew,\n    Which in sleep hath fallen on you.\"\n\nJesus teaches that the poor, the hungry, and the wretched shall be\nblessed? But blessing only comes when they cease to be poor, hungry, and\nwretched. Contentment under poverty, hunger, and misery is high treason,\nnot to yourself alone, but to your fellows. Slavery spreads quickly\nwherever humanity is stagnant and content with wrong.\n\nWhat did Jesus teach? \"Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.\"\n(Matthew xix, 19) But how if thy neighbor will not hear thy doctrine\nwhen thou preachest the \"glad tidings of great joy\" to him? Then\nforgetting all your love, and with the bitter hatred that a theological\ndisputant alone can manifest, you \"shall shake off the dust from your\nfeet,\" and by so doing make it more tolerable in the day of judgment for\nthe land of Sodom and Gomorrah, than for your unfortunate neighbor who\nhas ventured to reject your teaching (Matthew x, 14, 15). It is mockery\nto speak as if love could really result from the dehumanising and\nisolating faith required from the disciple of Jesus. Ignatius Loyola in\nthis, at least, was more consistent than his Protestant brethren. \"If\nany man come unto me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and\nchildren, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he\ncannot be my disciple.\" (Luke xiv, 26) \"Think not that I am come to send\npeace on earth. I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I come to set\na man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her\nmother, and the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a man's\nfoes they shall be of his own household.\" (Matthew x, 34-36) \"Every one\nthat hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or\nmother, or wife, or children, or lands for my sake, shall receive an\nhundred fold, and shall inherit everlasting life.\" (Matthew xix, 29) The\nteaching of Jesus is, in fact, save yourself by yourself. The teaching\nof humanity should be, to save yourself save your fellow. The human\nfamily is a vast chain, each man and woman a link. There is no snapping\noff one link and preserving for it, isolated from the rest, an entirety\nof happiness; our joy depends on our brother's also. Jesus teaches that\n\"many are called, but few are chosen;\" that the majority will inherit an\neternity of misery, while but the minority obtain eternal happiness. And\non what is the eternity of bliss to depend? On a truthful course of\nlife? Not so. Jesus puts Father Abraham in Heaven, whose reputation for\nfaith outstrips his character for veracity. The passport through\nHeaven's portals is faith. \"He that believeth and is baptised shall be\nsaved, but he that believeth not, shall be damned.\" (Mark xvi, 16) Are\nyou married? You love your wife? Both die. You from first to last had\nsaid, \"I believe,\" much as a well-trained parrot might say it. You had\nnever examined your reasons for your faith; as a true believer should,\nyou distrusted the efficacy of your carnal reason. You said, \"I believe\nin God and Jesus Christ,\" because you had been taught to say it, and you\nwould have as glibly said, \"I believe in Allah, and in Mahomet his\nprophet,\" had your birth-place been a few degrees eastward, and your\nparents and instructors Turks. You believed in this life, and after\ndeath awake in Heaven. Your much-loved wife did not think as you\ndid--she could not. Her organisation, education, and temperament were\nall different from your own. She disbelieved because she could not\nbelieve. She was a good wife, but she disbelieved. A good and\naffectionate mother, but she disbelieved. A virtuous and kindly woman,\nbut she disbelieved. And you are to be happy for an eternity in Heaven,\nwith the knowledge that she is writhing in agony in Hell. If this be\ntrue, Shelley was right in declaring that your Christianity:\n\n    \"Peoples earth with demons, hell with men,\n    And heaven with slaves.\"\n\nIt is urged that Jesus is the savior of the world, who brought\nredemption without let or stint to the whole human race. But what did\nJesus teach? \"Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and into any city of\nthe Samaritan enter ye not,\" (Matthew x, 6) were his injunctions to\nthose whom he first sent out to preach. \"I am not sent but unto the lost\nsheep of the house of Israel,\" is his hard answer to the poor\nSyrophenician woman who entreated succor for her child. Christianity, as\nfirst taught by Jesus, was for the Jews alone, it was only when rejected\nby them, that the world at large had the opportunity of salvation\nafforded it. \"He came unto his own and his own received him not.\" (John\ni, 11) Why should the Jews be more God's own than the Gentiles? Is God\nthe creator of all? did he create the descendant of Abraham with greater\nright and privilege than all other men? Then, indeed, is grievous\ninjustice. You had no choice whether to be born Jew or Gentile; yet to\nthe accident of such a birth is attached the first offer of a salvation\nwhich, if accepted, shuts out all beside.\n\nThe Kingdom of Heaven is a prominent feature in the teachings of Jesus.\nExamine the picture drawn by God incarnate of his own special domain.\n'Tis likened to a wedding feast, (Matthew xxii, 2) to which the invited\nguests coming not, servants were sent out into the highways to gather\nall they can find--both good and bad. The King, examining his motley\narray of guests, and finding one without a wedding garment inquired why\nhe came in to the feast without one. The man, whose attendance had been\ncompulsorily enforced, was speechless. And who can wonder? he was a\nguest from necessity, not choice, he neither chose the fashion of his\ncoming, or that of his attiring. Then comes the King's decree, the\ncommand of the all-merciful and loving King of Heaven. \"Bind him hand\nand foot, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and\ngnashing of teeth.\" Commentators urge that it was the custom to provide\nwedding garments for all guests, and that this man was punished for his\nnon-acceptance of the customary and ready robe. The text does not\nwarrant this explanation, but gives as moral of the parable, that an\ninvitation to the heavenly feast will not ensure partakal of it, for\nthat \"many are called, but few are chosen.\" What more of the Kingdom of\nHeaven? \"Joy shall be in Heaven over one sinner that repenteth, more\nthan over ninety and nine just persons which need no repentance.\" (Luke\nxv, 7) The greater sinner one has been, the better saint he makes, and\nthe more he has sinned, so much the more he loves God. \"To whom little\nis forgiven, the same loveth little.\" (Luke vii, 47) Thus asserting that\na life of vice, with its stains washed away by a death-bed repentance,\nis better than a life of consistent and virtuous conduct? Why should the\nfatted calf be killed for the prodigal son? (Luke xv, 27) Why should men\nbe taught to make to themselves friends of the mammon of\nunrighteousness? (Luke xvi, 9) These ambiguities, these assertions of\npunishment and forgiveness of crime, instead of directions for its\nprevention and cure, are serious blots on a system alleged to have been\ninculcated by one for whom his followers claim divinity.\n\nWill you urge the love of Jesus as the redeeming feature of the\nteaching? Then read the story of the fig tree (Matthew xxi, 18-22; Mark\nxi, 12-24) withered by the hungry Jesus. The fig tree was, if he were\nall-powerful God, made by him; he limited its growth and regulated its\ndevelopment; he prevented it from bearing figs, expected fruit where he\nhad rendered fruit impossible, and in his _infinite love_ was angry that\nthe tree had not upon it that it could not have. What love is expressed\nin that remarkable speech which follows one of his parables:--\"For, I\nsay unto you, that unto every one which hath shall be given, and from\nhim that hath not, even that which he hath shall be taken away from him.\n_But those, mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them,\nbring them hither, and slay them before me_.\" (Luke xix, 26, 27) What\nlove is expressed by that Jesus who, if he were God, represents himself\nas saying to the majority of his unfortunate creatures (for it is the\nfew that are chosen):--\"Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting\nfire, prepared for the devil and his angels.\" (Matthew xxv, 41) There is\nno love in this horrid doctrine of eternal torment. And yet the popular\npreachers of to-day talk first of the love of God and then of:\n\n    \"Hell, a red gulf of everlasting fire,\n    Where poisons and undying worms prolong\n    Eternal misery to those hapless slaves,\n    Whose life has been a penance for its crimes.\"\n\nIn the sayings attributed to Jesus there is the passage which influenced\nso extraordinarily the famous Origen (Matthew xix, 12). If he understood\nit aright, its teachings are most terrible. If he understood it wrongly,\nwhat of the wisdom of teaching which expresses itself so vaguely? The\ngeneral intent of Christ's teaching seems to be an inculcation of\nneglect of this life, in the search for another. \"Labor not for the meat\nwhich perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting\nlife.\" (John vi, 27) \"Take no thought for your life, what ye shall eat,\nor what ye shall drink; nor yet for your body, what ye shall put on...\ntake no thought saying, what shall we eat? or what shall we drink? or\nwherewithal shall we be clothed?.... But seek ye first the Kingdom of\nGod and his righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto\nyou.\" (Matthew vi, 25-33) These texts, if fully observed, would be most\ndisastrous; they would stay all scientific discoveries, prevent all\ndevelopment of man's energies. In the struggle for existence, men are\ncompelled to become acquainted with the conditions which compel\nhappiness or misery. It is only in the practical application of that\nknowledge, that the wants of society are ascertained, and disease,\npoverty, hunger, and wretchedness prevented, or at any rate lessened.\nJesus substitutes \"I believe,\" for \"I think,\" and puts \"watch and pray\"\ninstead of \"think, then act.\" Belief is the prominent doctrine which\npervades, and governs all Christianity. It is represented that, at the\njudgment, the world will be reproved \"Of sin, because they believe not.\"\nThis teaching is most disastrous; man should be incited to active\nthought: Christian belief would bind him to the teachings of a stagnant\npast. Fit companion to blind belief is slave-like prayer. Men pray as\nthough God needed most abject entreaty ere he would grant justice. What\ndoes Jesus teach on prayer? \"After this manner pray ye--Our Father,\nwhich art in heaven.\" Do you think that God is the Father of all, when\nyou pray that he will enable you to defeat some others of his children,\nwith whom your nation is at war? And why \"which art in Heaven?\" Where is\nyour Heaven? You look upward, and if you were at the Antipodes, would\nlook upward still. But that upward would be downward to us. Do you\nlocalize Heaven? Why say \"which art in Heaven?\" Is God infinite, then he\nis also in earth. \"Hallowed be thy name.\" \"What is God's name? if you\nknow it not how can you hallow it? how can God's name be hallowed even\nif you know it?\" \"Thy kingdom come.\" What is God's kingdom, and will\nyour praying bring it quicker? Is it the Judgment day, and do you who\nsay \"Love one another,\" pray for the more speedy arrival of that day, on\nwhich God may say to your fellow \"depart ye cursed into everlasting\nfire?\" \"Thy will be done on earth, as it is in heaven.\" How is God's\nwill done in heaven? If the Devil be a fallen angel, there must have\nbeen rebellion even there. \"Give us this day our daily bread.\" Will the\nprayer get it without work? No. Will work get it without prayer? Yes.\nWhy pray, then, for bread to God, who says, \"Blessed be ye that\nhunger... woe unto you that are full?\" \"And forgive us our debts, as we\nforgive our debtors.\" (Matthew vi, 12) What debts have you to God? Sins?\nColeridge writes, \"A sin is an evil which has its ground or origin in\nthe agent, and not in the compulsion of circumstances. Circumstances are\ncompulsory, from the absence of a power to resist or control them: and\nif the absence likewise be the effect of circumstances... the evil\nderives from the circumstances... and such evil is not sin.\"[36] Do you\nsay that you are independent of all circumstances, that you can control\nthem, that you have a free will? Buckle replies that the assertion of a\nfree will \"involves two assumptions, of which the first, though possibly\ntrue, has never been proved, and the second is unquestionably false.\nThese assumptions are that there is an independent faculty, called\nconsciousness, and that the dictates of that faculty are\ninfallible.\"[37] \"And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from\nevil.\" (Matthew vi, 13) Do you think God may lead you into temptation?\nif so, you cannot think him all good; if not all-good he is not God. If\nGod, the prayer is blasphemy.\n\n [36] \"Aids to Reflection,\" 1843, p. 200.\n\n [37] \"History of Civilisation,\" Vol. I, p. 14.\n\nJesus, according to the general declaration of Christian divines, came\nto die, and what does he teach by his death? The Rev. F.D. Maurice well\nsaid, \"That he who kills for a faith must be weak, that he who dies for\na faith must be strong.\" How did Jesus die? Giordano Bruno and Julius\nCaesar Vanini were burned, charged with heresy. They died calm, heroic,\ndefiant of wrong. Jesus, who could not die courted death, that he, as\nGod, might accept his own atonement, and might pardon man for a sin\nwhich the pardoned man had not committed, and in which he had no share.\nThe death Jesus courted came, and when it came he could not face it, but\nprayed to himself that he might not die. And at last, when on the cross,\nif two gospels do him no injustice his last words were a bitter cry of\ndeep despair. \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" The Rev.\nEnoch Mellor writing on the Atonement, says, \"I seek not to fathom the\nprofound mystery of these words. To understand their full import would\nrequire one to experience the agony of desertion they express.\" Do the\nwords, \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\" express an \"agony\"\ncaused by a consciousness of \"desertion?\" if this be not the meaning\nconveyed by the despairing death-cry then there is in it no meaning\nwhatever. And if those words do express a \"bitter agony of desertion\"\nthen they emphatically contradict the teachings of Jesus. \"Before\nAbraham was, I am.\" \"I and my father are one.\" \"Thou shalt not tempt the\nLord thy God.\" These were the words of Jesus--words conveying an\nimpression that divinity was claimed by the one who uttered them. If\nJesus had indeed been God, the words \"My God, my God,\" would have been a\nmockery most extreme. God could not have deemed himself forsaken by\nhimself. The dying Jesus, in that despair, confessed himself either the\ndupe of some other teaching, a self-deluded enthusiast, or an\narch-impostor, who in that bitter cry, with the wide-opening of the\nflood-gates through which life's stream ran out, confessed aloud that\nhe, at least, was no deity, and deemed himself a God-forsaken man. The\ngarden scene of agony is fitting prelude to this most terrible act.\nJesus, who is God, prays to himself: in \"agony he prayed most earnestly\"\n(Luke xxii, 44) He refuses to hear his own prayers, and he, the\nomnipotent, is forearmed against his coming trial by an angel from\nheaven, who \"strengthened\" the great Creator. Was Jesus the Son of God?\nPraying, he said \"Father the hour is come, glorify thy Son, that thy Son\nalso may glorify thee.\" (John xvii, 2) And was he glorified? His death\nand resurrection most strongly disbelieved in the very city where they\nare alleged to have happened. His doctrines rejected by the only people\nto whom he preached them. His miracles denied by the only nation amongst\nwhom they are alleged to have been performed; and he himself thus on the\ncross crying out, \"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?\"\n\nNor is it true that the teachings of Jesus are generally received. Jesus\ntaught: \"And these signs shall follow them that believe; in my name\nshall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; they\nshall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not\nhurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.\"\n(Mark xvi, 17, 18) How many of those who profess to believe in Jesus\nwould be content to be tested by these signs? Any person claiming that\neach sign was to be found manifested in her or his case would be\nregarded as mad. Illustrations of faith-healing occasionally arise, but\nare not always reliable, nor are such cures limited to those who profess\nfaith in Jesus. The gift of speaking with new tongues has been the claim\nof a very small sect. Serpent charming is more practised amongst Hindus\nthan amongst Christians.\n\nPeace and love are alleged to be the special characteristics of\nChristianity. Yet the whole history of Christian nations has been\nblurred by war and hate. Now and for the past thirty years the most\ncivilized amongst Christian nations have been devoting enormous sums and\nhuge masses of men to the preparation for war. Torpedoes and explosive\nshells, one hundred ton guns and mele-nite, are by Christian rulers\naccounted better aids than faith in Jesus.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TWELVE APOSTLES\n\n\nALL good Christians, indeed all Christians--for are there any who are\nnot models of goodness?--will desire that their fellow-creatures who are\nunbelievers should have the fullest possible information, biographical\nor otherwise, as as to the twelve persons specially chosen by Jesus to\nbe his immediate followers. The believer, of course, would be equally\ncontent with his faith in the absence of all historic vouchers. Indeed a\npious worshipper would cling to his creed not only without testimony in\nits favor, but despite direct testimony against it. It is to those not\nwithin the pale of the church that I shall seek to demonstrate the\ncredibility of the history of the twelve apostles. The short\nbiographical sketch here presented is extracted from the first five\nbooks of the New Testament, two of which at least are attributed to two\nof the twelve. It is objected, by heretical men who go as far in their\ncriticisms on the Gospels as Colenso does with the Pentateuch, that not\none of the gospels is original or written by any of the apostles; that,\non the contrary, they were preceded by numerous writings, since lost or\nrejected, these in their turn having for their basis the oral tradition\nwhich preceded them. It is alleged that the four gospels are utterly\nanonymous, and that the fourth gospel is subject to strong suspicions of\nspuriousness. To use on this part of the words of the author of\n\"Supernatural Religion,\" applied by him to the Acts of the Apostles: \"As\na general rule, any documents so full of miraculous episodes and\nsupernatural occurrences would, without hesitation, be characterized as\nfabulous and incredible, and would not, by any sober-minded reader, be\nfor a moment accepted as historical. There is no other testimony.\" It\nwould be useless to combat, and I therefore boldly ignore these attacks\non the authenticity of the text, and proceed with my history. The names\nof the twelve are as follows--Simon, surnamed Peter; Andrew, his\nbrother; James and John, the sons of Zebedee; Andrew, Philip;\nBartholomew; Matthew; James, the son of Alphteus; Simon, the Canaanite;\nJudas Iscariot; and a twelfth, as to whose name there is some\nuncertainty; it was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is in\nMatthew alone (x, 3) that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned\nthus--\"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.\" We are told, on this\npoint, by able Biblicists, that the early MSS have not the words \"whose\nsurname was Thaddaeus,\" and that these words have probably been inserted\nto reconcile the gospel according to Matthew with that attributed to\nMark. How good must have been the old fathers who sought to improve upon\nthe Holy Ghost by making clear that which inspiration had left doubtful!\nIn the English version of the Rheims Testament used in this country by\nour Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation between Matthew and Mark\nis completed by omitting the words \"Lebbaeus whose surname was,\" leaving\nonly the name \"Thad-daeus\" in Matthew's text. This omission must be\ncorrect, being by the authority of an infallible church, and Dr. Newman\nshows us that when the church pronounces all doubt is damnable. If\nMatthew x, 3, and Mark iii, 18, be passed as reconciled, although the\nfirst calls the twelfth disciple Lebbaeus, and the second gives him the\nname Thaddaeus, there is yet the difficulty that in Luke vi, 16,\ncorroborated by John xiv, 22, there is a disciple spoken of as \"Judas,\nnot Iscariot.\" \"Judas, _the brother_ of James.\" Commentators have\nendeavored to clear away this last difficulty by declaring that\nThaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the same meaning as Judas. This\nhas been answered by the objection that if Matthew's Gospel uses\nThaddaeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to speak of Thaddaeus\nIscariot, which he does not; and it is further objected also that while\nthere are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew original for the gospel\nattributed to Matthew, there is not the slightest pretence for alleging\nthat Matthew wrote in Syriac. It is to be hoped that the unbelieving\nreader will not stumble on the threshold of his study because of a\nlittle uncertainty as to a name. What is in a name? The Jewish name\nwhich we read as Jesus is really Joshua, but the name to which we are\nmost accustomed seems the one we should adhere to.\n\nSimon Peter being the first named amongst the disciples of Jesus,\ndeserves the first place in this notice. The word \"Simon\" may be\nrendered, if taken as a Greek name, _flat-nose_ or _ugly_. Some of the\nancient Greek and Hebrew names are characteristic of peculiarities in\nthe individual, but no one now knows whether Peter's nose had anything\nto do with his name. Simon is rather a Hebrew name, but Peter is Greek,\nsignifying a rock or stone. Peter is supposed to have the keys of the\nkingdom of heaven, and his second name may express his stony\ninsensibility to all appeals by infidels for admittance to the celestial\nregions. Lord Byron's \"Vision of Judgment\" is the highest known\nauthority as to Saint Peter's celestial duties, but this nobleman's\npoems are only fit for very pious readers. Peter, ere he became a\nparson, was by trade a fisher, and when Jesus first saw Peter, the\nlatter was in a vessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net\ninto the sea of Galilee. The calling of Peter and Andrew to the\napostleship was sudden, and apparently unexpected. Jesus walking by the\nsea said to them--\"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.\"\n(Matthew iv, 18-22) The two brothers did so, and they became Christ's\ndisciples. The successors of Peter have since reversed the apostle's\nearly practice: instead of now casting their nets into the sea, the\nmodern representatives of the disciples of Jesus draw the sees into\ntheir nets, and, it is believed, find the result much more profitable.\nWhen Jesus called Peter no one was with him but his brother Andrew; a\nlittle further on the two sons of Zebedee were in a ship with their\nfather mending nets. This is the account of Peter's call given in the\ngospel according to Matthew, and as according to the Church Matthew was\ninspired by the Holy Ghost, who is identical with God the Father, who is\none with God the Son, who is Jesus, the account must be free from error.\nIn the Gospel according to John, which is likewise inspired in the same\nmanner, from the same source, and with similar infallibility, we learn\nthat Andrew was originally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when\nAndrew first saw Jesus Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found\nPeter who, if fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him \"we\nhave found the Messiah,\" and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus,\nwho said: \"Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called\nCephas.\" There is no mention in this gospel narrative of the sons of\nZebedee being a little further on, or of any fishing in the sea of\nGalilee. This call is clearly on land, whether or not near the sea of\nGalilee does not appear. In the Gospel according to Luke, which is as\nmuch inspired as either of the two before-mentioned gospels, and,\ntherefore, equally authentic with each of them, we are told (Luke v,\n1-11) that when the call took place Jesus and Peter were both at sea.\nJesus had been preaching to the people, who, pressing upon him, he got\ninto Simon's ship, from which he preached. After this he directed Simon\nto put out into the deep and let down the nets. Simon answered: \"Master,\nwe have toiled all night, and taken nothing; nevertheless, at thy word I\nwill let down the net.\" No sooner was this done than the net was filled\nto breaking, and Simon's partners, the two sons of Zebedee, came to\nhelp, when, at the call of Jesus, they brought their ships to land, and\nfollowed him. From these accounts the unbeliever may learn that when\nJesus called Peter either both Jesus and Peter were on the land, or one\nwas on land and the other on the sea, or both of them were at sea. He\nmay also learn that the sons of Zebedee were present at the time, having\ncome to help to get in the great catch, and were called with Peter; or\nthat they were further on, sitting mending nets with their father, and\nwere called afterwards; or that they were neither present nor near at\nhand. He may also be assured that Simon was in his ship when Jesus came\nto call him, and that Jesus was on land when Andrew, Simon's brother,\nfound Simon and brought him to Jesus to be called. The unbeliever must\nnot hesitate because of any apparent incoherence or contradiction in the\nnarrative. The greater the difficulty in believing, the more deserved\nthe reward which only comes to belief. With faith it is easy to\nharmonise the three narratives above quoted, especially when you know\nthat Jesus had visited Simon's house before the call of Simon, (Luke iv,\n38) but did not go to Simon's house until after Simon had been called\n(Matthew viii, 14). Jesus went to Simon's house and cured his wife's\nmother of a fever. Robert Taylor,[38] commenting on the fever-curing\nmiracle, says--\"St. Luke tells us that this fever had taken the woman,\nnot that the woman had taken the fever, and not that the fever was a\nvery bad fever, or a yellow fever, or a scarlet fever, but that it was a\ngreat fever--that is, I suppose, a fever six feet high at least; a\npersonal fever, a rational and intelligent fever, that would yield to\nthe power of Jesus's argument, but would never have given way to James's\npowder. So we are expressly told that Jesus rebuked the fever--that is,\nhe gave it a good scolding; asked it, I dare say, how it could be so\nunreasonable as to plague the poor old woman so cruelly, and whether it\nwasn't ashamed of itself; and said, perhaps, _Get out, you naughty\nwicked fever, you_; and such like objurgatory language, which the fever,\nnot being used to be rebuked in such a manner, and being a very sensible\nsort of fever, would not stand, but immediately left the old woman in\nhigh dudgeon.\" This Robert Taylor, although a clergyman of the Church of\nEngland, has been convicted of blasphemy and imprisoned for writing in\nsuch wicked language about the Bible. Simon Peter, as a disciple,\nperformed many miracles, some when in company with Jesus, and more when\nseparately by himself. These miracles, though themselves unvouched by\nany reliable testimony, and disbelieved by the people amongst whom they\nwere worked, are strong evidence in favor of the apostolic character\nclaimed for Peter.\n\n [38] \"Devil's Pulpit,\" vol. i, p. 148.\n\nOn one occasion the whole of the disciples were sent away by Jesus in a\nship, the Savior remaining behind to pray. About the fourth watch of the\nnight, when the ship was in the midst of the sea, Jesus went unto his\ndisciples, walking on the sea. Though Jesus went unto his disciples,\nand, as an expeditious way, I suppose, of arriving with them, he would\nhave passed by them, but they saw him, and supposing him to be a spirit,\ncried out. Jesus bid them be of good cheer, to which Peter answered,\n(Matthew xiv, 23) \"Lord, if it be thou, bid me come unto thee.\" Jesus\nsaid, \"Come,\" and Peter walked on the water to go to Jesus. But the sea\nbeing wet and the wind boisterous, Peter became afraid, and instead of\nwalking on the water began to sink into it, and cried out \"Lord save\nme,\" and immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught Peter.\n\nSome object that the two gospels according to John and Mark, which both\nrecord the feat of water-walking by Jesus, omit all mention of Peter's\nattempt. Probably the Holy Ghost had good reasons for omitting it. A\nprofane mind might make a jest of an Apostle \"half seas over,\" and\nridicule an apostolic gatekeeper who could not keep his head above\nwater.\n\nPeter's partial failure in this instance should drive away all unbelief,\nas the text will show that it was only for lack of faith that\n\nPeter lost his buoyancy. Simon is called Bar-Jonah, that is, son of\nJonah, but I am not aware that he is any relation to the Jonah who lived\nunder water in the belly of a fish three days and three nights.\n\nIt was Simon Peter who, having told Jesus he was the Son of God, was\nanswered \"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jonah, flesh and blood hath not\nrevealed it unto thee.\" (Matthew xvi, 17) We find a number of disciples\nshortly before this, and in Peter's presence, telling Jesus that he was\nthe Son of God, (Matthew xiv, 33) but there is, of course, no real\ncontradiction between the two texts. It was on this occasion that Jesus\nsaid to Simon, \"Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my\nChurch, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and I will\ngive thee the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt\nbind on earth shall be bound in Heaven, and whatsoever thou shalt loose\non earth shall be loosed in Heaven.\" Under these extraordinary\ndeclarations from the mouth of God the Son, the Bishops of Rome have\nclaimed, as successors of Peter, the same privileges, and their\npretensions have been acceded to by some of the most powerful monarchs\nof Europe.\n\nUnder this claim the Bishops, or Popes of Rome, have at various times\nissued Papal Bulls, by which they have sought to bind the entire world.\nMany of these have been very successful; but in 1302, Philip the Fair,\nof France, publicly burned the Pope Boniface's Bull after an address in\nwhich the States-General had denounced, in words more expressive than\npolite, the right of the Popes of Rome to Saint Peter's keys on earth.\nSome deny that the occupiers of the episcopal seat in the seven-hilled\ncity are really of the Church of Christ, and they point to the bloody\nquarrels which have raged between men, contending for the Papal dignity.\nThey declare that those Vicars of Christ have more than once resorted to\nfraud, treachery, and murder, to secure the Papal dignity. They point to\nStephen VII, the son of an unmarried priest, who cut off the head of his\npredecessor's corpse; to Sergius III, convicted of assassination; to\nJohn X, who was strangled in the bed of his paramor Theodora; to John\nXI, son of Pope Sergius III, famous only for his drunken debauchery; to\nJohn XII, found assassinated in the apartments of his mistress; to\nBenedict IX, who both purchased and sold the Pontificate; to Gregory\nVII, the pseudo lover of the Countess Matilda, and the author of\ncenturies of war carried on by his successors. And if these suffice not,\nthey point to Alexander Borgia, whose name is but the echo of crime, and\nwhose infamy will be as lasting as history. It is answered: \"By the\nfruit ye shall judge of the tree.\" It is useless to deny the vine's\nexistence because the grapes are sour. Peter, the favored disciple, it\nis declared was a rascal, and why not his successors? They have only to\nrepent, and there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that re-penteth\nthan over ninety and nine righteous men. Such language is very terrible,\nand arises from allowing the carnal reason too much freedom.\n\nAll true believers will be familiar with the story of Peter's sudden\nreadiness to deny his Lord and teacher in the hour of danger, and will\neasily draw the right moral from the mysterious lesson here taught; but\nunbelievers may be a little inclined to agree with the common infidel\nobjections on this point. These objections, therefore, shall be first\nstated, and then refuted in the most orthodox fashion. It is objected\nthat all the denials were to take place before the cock should crow,\n(Matthew xxvi, 34; Luke xxii, 34; John xiii, 38) but that only one\ndenial actually took place before the cock crew (Mark xiv, 68). That the\nfirst denial by Peter that he knew Jesus, or was one of his disciples,\nwas at the door to the damsel, (John xviii, 17) but was inside while\nsitting by the fire, (Luke xxii, 57) that the second denial was to a\nman, and apparently still sitting by the fire (Luke xvii, 58), but was\nto a maid when he was gone out into the porch. That these denials, or at\nany rate, the last denial, were all in the presence of Jesus (Luke xvii,\n61), who turned and looked at Peter, but that the first denial was at\nthe door, Jesus being inside the palace, the second denial out in the\nporch, Jesus being still inside (Mark xiv, 69), and the third denial\nalso outside. The refutation of these paltry objections is so simple,\nthat any little child could give it, and none but an infidel would need\nto hear it, we therefore refrain from penning it. None but a disciple of\nPaine, or follower of Voltaire, would permit himself to be drawn to the\nrisk of damnation on the mere question as to when some cock happened to\ncrow, or as to the particular spot on which a recreant apostle denied\nhis master. It is the merest justice to Peter to add that his disloyalty\nto Jesus was shared by his co-apostles. When Jesus was arrested \"all the\ndisciples forsook him and fled\" (Matthew xxvi, 56). The true believer\nmay sometimes be puzzled that Peter should so deny Jesus after he,\nPeter, had seen (Matthew xvii, 3-5) Moses and Elias, who had been dead\nmany centuries, talking with Jesus, and had heard \"a voice out of the\ncloud which said, this is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased.\"\nThe unbeliever must not allow himself to be puzzled by this. Two of the\ntwelve apostles, whose names are not given, saw Jesus after he was dead,\non the road to Emmaus, but they did not know him; towards evening they\nknew him, and he vanished out of their sight. In broad daylight they did\nnot know him, at evening time they knew him. While they did not know him\nthey could see him, when they did know him they could not see him. Well\nmay true believers declare that the ways of the Lord are wonderful. One\nof the apostles, Thomas, called Didymus, set the world an example of\nunbelief. He disbelieved the other disciples when they said to him, \"we\nhave seen the Lord,\" and required to see Jesus, though dead, alive in\nthe flesh, and touch the body of his crucified master. Thomas the\napostle had his requirements complied with --he saw, he touched, and he\nbelieved. The great merit is to believe without any evidence--\"He that\nbelieveth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be\ndamned.\" How it was that Thomas the apostle did not know Jesus when he\nsaw him shortly after near the sea of Tiberias, is another of the\nmysteries of the Holy Christian religion. The acts of the apostles after\nthe death of Jesus deserve treatment in a separate paper; the present\nessay is issued to aid the members of the Church Congress in their\nendeavors to stem the rising tide of infidelity.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ATONEMENT\n\n\n\"_Quel est donc ce Dieu qui fait mourir Dieu pour apaiser Dieu?_\"\n\nTHE chief feature of the Christian religion is that Jesus, the Son of\nGod, \"very God of very God,\" sacrificed himself, or was sacrificed by\nGod the Father, to atone for Adam's transgression, some 4,000 years\nbefore, against a divine command. It is declared in the New Testament,\nin clear and emphatic language, that in consequence of the one man\nAdam's sin, death entered into the world, and judgment and condemnation\ncame upon all men. It is also declared that \"Christ died for the\nungodly;\" \"that he died for our sins,\" and \"was delivered for our\noffences.\" On the one hand it is urged that Adam, the sole source of the\nhuman family, offended deity, and that the consequence of this offence\nwas the condemnation to death, after a life of sorrow, of the entire\nrace. On the other side of the picture is portrayed the love of God, who\nsent his only beloved son to die--and by his death procuring for all\neternal life--to save the remnant of humanity from the further vengeance\nof their all-merciful heavenly father. The religion of Christ finds its\nsource in the forbidden fruit of the yet undiscovered Garden of Eden.\n\nAdam's sin is the corner-stone of Christianity, the keystone of the\narch. Without the fall there is no redeemer, for there is no fallen one\nto be redeemed. It is, then, to the history of Adam that the critical\nexaminant of the Atonement theory should first direct his attention. But\nto try the doctrine of the Atonement by the aid of science would be\nfatal to religion. As for the one man Adam,\n\n6,000 years ago the first of the human race, his existence is not only\nunvouched for by science, but is actually questioned by the timid, and\nrepudiated by the bolder, exponents of modern ethnology. The human race\nis traced back far beyond the period fixed for Adam's sin. Egypt and\nIndia speak for humanity busy with wars, rival dynasties, and religions,\nlong prior to the date given for the garden scene in Eden.\n\nThe fall of Adam could not have brought sin upon mankind, and death by\nsin, if hosts of men and women so lived and died ages before the words\n\"thou shalt surely die\" were spoken by God to man.\n\nNor could all men inherit Adam's misfortune if it be true that it is not\nto one but to many centres of origin that we ought to trace back the\nvarious races of mankind.\n\nThe theologian who finds no evidence of death prior to the offence\nshared by Adam and Eve is laughed to scorn by the geologist, who points\nto the innumerable petrifactions in the earth's strata, which with a\nmillion tongues declare, more potently than loudest speech, that myriads\nof myriads of living things ceased their life-struggle incalculable ages\nbefore man's era on our world.\n\nScience has so little to offer in support of any religious doctrine, and\nso much to advance against all purely theologic tenets, that we turn to\na point giving the Christian greater vantage ground, and accepting for\nthe moment his scriptures as our guide, we deny that he can maintain the\npossibility of Adam's sin, and yet consistently affirm the existence of\nan all-wise, all-powerful, and all-good God. Did Adam sin? We take the\nChristian's Bible in our hands to answer the question, first defining\nthe word sin. What is sin? Samuel Taylor Coleridge says: \"A sin is an\nevil which has its ground or origin in the agent, and not in the\ncompulsion of circumstances. Circumstances are compulsory from the\nabsence of a power to resist or control them, and if this absence be\nlikewise the effect of circumstances (that is, if it have been neither\ndirectly nor indirectly caused by the agent himself) the evil derived\nfrom the circumstance, and therefore such evil is not sin, and the\nperson who suffers it, or is the compelled actor or instrument of its\ninfliction on others, may feel regret, but not remorse. Let us\ngeneralise the word circumstance so as to understand by it all and\neverything not connected with the will.... Even though it were the warm\nblood circulating in the chambers of the heart or man's most inmost\nsensations, we regard them as circumstantial, extrinsic, or from\nwithout.... An act to be sin must be original, and a state or act that\nhas not its origin in the will may be calamity, deformity, or disease,\nbut sin it cannot be. It is not enough that the act appears so\nvoluntary, or that it has the most hateful passions or debasing appetite\nfor its proximate cause and accompaniment. All these may be found in a\nmadhouse, where neither law nor humanity permit us to condemn the actor\nof sin. The reason of law declared the maniac not a free agent, and the\nverdict followed of course, _not guilty_.\" Did Adam sin?\n\nThe Bible story is that a Deity created one man and one woman; that he\nplaced them in a garden wherein he had also placed a tree, which was\ngood for food, pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make\none wise. That although he had expressly given the fruit of every tree\nbearing seed for food, he, nevertheless, commanded them not to eat of\nthe fruit of this specially attractive tree under penalty of death.\nSupposing Adam to have at once disobeyed this injunction, would it have\nbeen sin? The fact that God had made the tree good for food, pleasant to\nthe eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, should have surely\nbeen sufficient justification. The God-created inducement to partake of\nits fruit was strong and ever operative. The inhibition lost its value\nas against the enticement. If the All-wise had intended the tree to be\navoided, would he have made its allurements so overpowering to the\nsenses? But the case does not rest here. In addition to all the\nattractions of the tree, and as though there were not enough, there is a\nsubtle serpent gifted with suasive speech, who, either wiser or more\ntruthful than the All-perfect Deity, says that although God has\nthreatened immediate death as the consequence of disobedience to his\ncommand, yet they \"shall not die; for God doth know that in the day ye\neat thereof, your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing\ngood and evil.\" The tempter is stronger than the tempted, the witchery\nof the serpent is too great for the spell-bound woman, the decoy tree is\ntoo potent in its temptations; overpersuaded herself by the\nhoney-tongued voice of the seducer, she plucks the fruit and gives to\nher husband also. And for this giving way to a God-designed temptation\ntheir offspring are to suffer God's eternal, unforgiving wrath! The yet\nunborn children are to be the victims of God's vengeance on their\nparents' weakness--though he had made them weak; had created the tempter\nsufficiently strong to practise upon this weakness; and had arranged the\ncauses, predisposing man and woman to commit the offence--if indeed it\nbe an offence to pluck the fruit of a tree which gives knowledge to the\neater. It is for this fall that Jesus is to atone. He is sacrificed to\nredeem the world's inhabitants from the penalties for a weakness (for\nsin it was not) they had no share in. It was not sin; for the man was\ninfluenced by circumstances prearranged by Deity, and which man was\npowerless to resist or control. But if the man was so influenced by such\ncircumstances, it was God who influenced the man--the God who punished\nthe human race for an action to the commission of which he impelled\ntheir progenitor.\n\nAdam did not sin. He ate of the fruit of a tree which God had made good\nto be eaten. He was induced to this through the indirect persuasion of a\nserpent God had made for the very purpose of persuading him. But even if\nAdam did sin, and even if he and Eve, his wife, were the first parents\nof the whole human family, what have we to do with their sin? We, unborn\nwhen the act was committed, and without choice as to coming into this\nworld amongst the myriad worlds which roll in the vast expanse of solar\nand astral systems. Why should Jesus atone for Adam's sin? Adam suffered\nfor his own offence; he, according to the curse, was to eat in sorrow of\nthe fruit of the earth all his life as punishment for his offence.\nAtonement, after punishment, is surely a superfluity. Or was the\natonement only for those who needed no atonement, having no part in the\noffence? Did the sacrifice of Jesus serve as atonement for the whole\nworld, and, if yes, for all sin, or for Adam's sin only? If the\natonement is for the whole world, does it extend to unbelievers as well\nas to believers in the efficacy? if it only includes believers, then\nwhat has become of those generations who, according to the Bible, for\n4,000 years succeeded each other in the world without faith in Christ\nbecause without knowledge of his mission? Should not Jesus have come\n4,000 years earlier, or, at least, should he not have come when the Ark\ngrounded on Ararat served as monument of God's merciless vengeance,\nwhich had made the whole earth like to a battle field, whereon the\nomnipotent had crushed the feeble, and had marked his prowess by the\ninnumerable myriads of decaying dead? If it be declared that though the\natonement by Jesus only applies to believers in his mission so far as\nregards human beings born since his coming, yet that it is wider in its\nretrospective redeeming effect; then the answer is that it is unfair to\nthose born after Jesus to make faith the condition precedent to the\nsaving efficacy of atonement, especially if belief be required from all\nmankind posterior to the Christian era, whether they have heard of Jesus\nor not. Japanese, Chinese, Indians, Kaffirs, and others have surely a\nright to complain of this atonement scheme, which ensures them eternal\ndamnation by making it requisite to believe in a Gospel of which they\nhave no knowledge. If it be contended that belief will only be required\nfrom those to whom the Gospel of Jesus has been preached, and who have\nhad afforded to them the opportunity of its acceptance, then how great a\ncause of complaint against Christian Missionaries have those peoples\nwho, without such missions, might have escaped damnation for unbelief.\nThe gates of hell are opened to them by the earnest propagandist, who\nprofesses to show the road to heaven.\n\nBut does this atonement serve only to redeem the human family from the\ncurse inflicted by Deity in Eden's garden for Adam's sin, or does it\noperate as satisfaction for all sin? If the salvation is from the\npunishment for Adam's sin alone, and if belief and baptism are, as Jesus\nhimself affirms, to be the conditions precedent to any saving efficacy\nin the much-lauded atonement by the son of God, then what becomes of a\nchild that only lives a few hours, is never baptised, and never having\nany mind, consequently never has any belief? Or what becomes of one\nidiot-born who, throughout his dreary life, never has mental capacity\nfor the acceptance or examination of, or credence in any religious\ndogmas whatever? Is the idiot saved who cannot believe? Is the infant\nsaved who cannot believe? I, with some mental faculties tolerably\ndeveloped, cannot believe. Must I be damned? If so, fortunate\nshort-lived babe! lucky idiot! That the atonement should not be\neffective until the person to be saved has been baptised, that the\nsprinkling of a few drops of water should quench the flames of hell, is\na remarkable feature in the Christian's creed:\n\n    \"One can't but think it somewhat droll,\n    Pump-water thus should cleanse a soul.\"\n\nHow many fierce quarrels have raged on the formula of baptism amongst\nthose loving brothers in Christ who believe he died for them! How\nstrange an idea that, though God has been crucified to redeem mankind,\nit yet needs the font of water to wash away the lingering stain of\nAdam's crime.\n\nOne minister of the Church of England, occupying the presidential chair\nof a well-known training college for Church clergymen in the North of\nEngland, seriously declared, in the presence of a large auditory and of\nseveral church dignitaries, that the sin of Adam was so potent in its\neffect, that if a man _had never been born, he would yet have been\ndamned for sin_. That is, he declared that man existed before birth, and\nthat he committed sin before he was born; and if never born, would\nnotwithstanding deserve to suffer eternal torment for that sin.\n\nIt is almost impossible to discuss seriously a doctrine so monstrously\nabsurd, and yet it is not one whit more ridiculous than the ordinary\northodox and terrible doctrine, that God the undying, in his infinite\nlove, killed himself under the form of his son to appease the cruel\nvengeance of God, the just and merciful, who, without this, would have\nbeen ever vengeful, unjust, and merciless.\n\nThe atonement theory, as presented to us by the Bible, is in effect as\nfollows:--God created man surrounded by such conditions as the divine\nmind chose, in the selection of which man had no voice, and the effects\nof which on man were all foreknown and predestined by Deity. The result\nwas man's fall on the very first temptation, so frail the nature with\nwhich he was endowed, or so powerful the temptation to which he was\nsubjected. For this fall not only did the all-merciful punish Adam, but\nalso his posterity; and this punishing went on for many centuries, until\nGod, the immutable, changed his purpose of continual condemnation of men\nfor sins they had no share in, and was wearied with his long series of\nunjust judgments on those whom he created in order that he might judge\nthem. That, then, God sent his son, who was himself and was also his own\nfather, and who was immortal, to die upon the cross, and, by this\nsacrifice, to atone for the sin which God himself had caused Adam to\ncommit, and thus to appease the merciless vengeance of the All-merciful,\nwhich would otherwise have been continued against men yet unborn for an\noffence they could not have been concerned in or accessory to. Whether\nthose who had died before Christ's coming are redeemed, the Bible does\nnot clearly tell us. Those born after are redeemed only on condition of\ntheir faith in the efficacy of the sacrifice offered, and in the truth\nof the history of Jesus's life. The doctrine of salvation by sacrifice\nof human life is the doctrine of a barbarous and superstitious age: the\noutgrowth of a brutal and depraved era. The God who accepts the bloody\noffering of an innocent victim in lieu of punishing the guilty culprit\nshows no mercy in sparing the offender: he has already satiated his lust\nfor vengeance on the first object presented to him.\n\nSacrifice is an early, prominent, and with slight exception an abiding\nfeature in the Hebrew record--sacrifice of life finds appreciative\nacceptance from the Jewish Deity. Cain's offering of fruits is\nineffective, but Abel's altar, bearing the firstlings of his flock and\nthe fat thereof, finds respect in the sight of the Lord. While the face\nof the earth was disfigured by the rotting dead after God in his\ninfinite mercy had deluged the world, then it was that the ascending\nsmoke from Noah's burnt sacrifice of bird and beast produced pleasure in\nheaven, and God himself smelled a sweet savor from the roasted meats. To\npreach atonement for the past by sacrifice is worse than folly--it is\ncrime. The past can never be recalled, and the only reference to it\nshould be that, by marking its events, we may avoid its evil deeds and\nimprove upon its good ones. The Levitical doctrine of the atonement,\nwith its sin laden scapegoat sent into the wilderness to the evil demon\nAzazel, though placed in the Pentateuch, is of much later date, being\none of the myths acquired by the Jews during their captivity. The\ngeneral notion of atonement by sacrifice is that of an averting of the\njust judgment by an offering which may induce the judge, who in this\ncase is also the executioner, to delay or remit the punishment he has\nawarded. In the gospel atonement story the weird folly of the scapegoat\nmystery and the barbarous waste of doves, pigeons, rams, and bulls as\nburnt offerings are all outdone. We have in lieu of these the history of\nthe Man-God subject to human passions and infirmities, who comes to die,\nand who prays to his heavenly father--that is, to himself--that he will\nspare him the bitter cup of death; who is betrayed, having himself, ere\nhe laid the foundations of the world, predestined Judas to betray him;\nand who dies, being God immortal, crying with his almost dying\nbreath--\"My God! my God! why hast thou forsaken me?\"\n\n\n\n\nWHEN WERE OUR GOSPELS WRITTEN?\n\n\nAN ANSWER TO THE RELIGIOUS TRACT SOCIETY\n\nPREFATORY NOTE TO FOURTH EDITION\n\nSINCE this pamphlet was originally penned in 1867, the author of\n\"Supernatural Religion\" has in his three volumes placed a very\nstorehouse of information within the easy reach of every student, and\nmany of Dr. Tischendorf's reckless statements have been effectively\ndealt with in that masterly work. In the present brief pamphlet there is\nonly the very merest index to matters which in \"Supernatural Religion\"\nare exhaustively treated. Part II of \"The Freethinkers' Text-Book,\" by\nMrs Besant, has travelled over the same ground with much care, and has\ngiven exact reference to authorities on each point.\n\nTHE Religious Tract Society, some time since, issued, prefaced with\ntheir high commendation, a translation of a pamphlet by Dr. Constantine\nTischendorf, entitled \"When were our Gospels Written?\" In the\nintroductory preface we are not unfairly told that \"on the credibility\nof the four Gospels the whole of Christianity rests, as a building on\nits foundations.\" It is proposed in this brief essay to deal with the\ncharacter of Dr. Tischendorf's advocacy, then to examine the genuineness\nof the four Gospels, as affirmed by the Religious Tract Society's\npamphlet, and at the same time to ascertain, so far as is possible in\nthe space, how far the Gospel narrative is credible.\n\nThe Religious Tract Society state that Dr. Teschendorf's _brochure_ is a\nrepetition of \"arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of the\nfour Gospels,\" which the erudite Doctor had previously published for the\nlearned classes, \"with explanations\" now given in addition, to render\nthe arguments \"intelligible\" to meaner capacities; and as the \"Infidel\"\nand \"Deist\" are especially referred to as likely to be overthrown by\nthis pamphlet, we may presume that the society considers that in the 119\npages--which the translated essay occupies--they have presented the best\npaper that can be issued on their behalf for popular reading on this\nquestion. The praise accorded by the society, and sundry laudations\nappropriated with much modesty in his own preface by Dr. Constantine\nTischendorf to himself, compel one at the outset to regard the Christian\nmanifesto as a most formidable production. The Society's translator\nimpressively tells us that the pamphlet has been three times printed in\nGermany and twice in France; that it has been issued in Dutch and\nRussian, and is done into Italian by an Archbishop with the actual\napprobation of the Pope. The author's preface adds an account of his\ngreat journeyings and heavy travelling expenses incurred out of an\noriginal capital of a \"few unpaid bills,\" ending in the discovery of a\nbasketful of old parchments destined for the flames by the Christian\nmonks in charge, but which from the hands of Dr. Tischendorf are used by\nthe Religious Tract Society to neutralise all doubts, and to \"blow to\npieces\" the Rationalistic criticism of Germany and the coarser\nInfidelity of England. Doubtless Dr. Tischendorf and the Society\nconsider it some evidence in favor of the genuineness and authenticity\nof the four Gospels that the learned Doctor was enabled to spend 5,000\ndollars out of less than nothing, and that the Pope regards his pamphlet\nwith favor, or they would not trouble to print such statements. We\nfrankly accord them the full advantage of any argument which may fairly\nbe based on such facts. An autograph letter of endorsement by the Pope\nis certainly a matter which a Protestant Tract Society--who regard \"the\nscarlet whore at Babylon\" with horror--may well be proud of.\n\nDr. Tischendorf states that he has since 1839 devoted himself to the\ntextual study of the New Testament, and it ought to be interesting to\nthe orthodox to know that, as a result of twenty-seven years' labor, he\nnow declares that \"it has been placed beyond doubt that the original\ntext... had in many places undergone such serious modifications of\nmeaning as to leave us in painful uncertainty as to what the apostles\nhad actually written,\" and that \"the right course to take\" \"is to set\naside the received text altogether and to construct a fresh text.\"\n\nThis is pleasant news for the true believer, promulgated by authority of\nthe managers of the great Christian depot in Paternoster Row, from\nwhence many scores of thousands of copies of this incorrect received\ntext have nevertheless been issued without comment to the public, even\nsince the society have published in English Dr. Tischendorf s\ndeclaration of its unreliable character.\n\nWith the modesty and honorable reticence peculiar to great men, Dr.\nTischendorf records his successes in reading hitherto unreadable\nparchments, and we learn that he has received approval from \"several\nlearned bodies, and even from crowned heads,\" for his wonderful\nperformances. As a consistent Christian, who knows that the \"powers that\nbe are ordained of God,\" our \"critic without rival,\" for so he prints\nhimself, regards the praise of crowned heads as higher in degree than\nthat of learned bodies.\n\nThe Doctor discovered in 1844 the MS on which he now relies to confute\naudacious Infidelity, in the Convent of St. Catherine at Sinai; he\nbrought away a portion, and handed that portion, on his return, to the\nSaxon Government--they paying all expenses. The Doctor, however, did not\nthen divulge where he had found the MS. It was for the advantage of\nhumankind that the place should be known at once, for, at least, two\nreasons. First, because by aid of the remainder of this MS--\"the most\nprecious Bible treasure in existence\"--the faulty text of the New\nTestament was to be reconstructed; and the sooner the work was done the\nbetter for believers in Christianity. And, secondly, the whole story of\nthe discovery might then have been more easily confirmed in every\nparticular.\n\nFor fifteen years, at least, Dr. Tischendorf hid from the world the\nprecise locality in which his treasure had been discovered. Nay, he was\neven fearful when he knew that other Christians were trying to find the\ntrue text, and he experienced \"peculiar satisfaction\" when he\nascertained that his silence had misled some pious searchers after\nreliable copies of God's message to all humankind; although all this\ntime he was well aware that our received copies of God's revelation had\nundergone \"serious modifications\" since the message had been delivered\nfrom the Holy Ghost by means of the Evangelists.\n\nIn 1853, \"nine years after the original discovery,\" Dr. Tisch-endorf\nagain visited the Sinai convent, but although he had \"enjoined on the\nmonks to take religious care\" of the remains of which they, on the\nformer occasion, would not yield up possession, he, on this second\noccasion, and apparently after careful search, discovered \"eleven short\nlines,\" which convinced him that the greater part of the MS had been\ndestroyed. He still, however, kept the place secret, although he had no\nlonger any known reason for so doing; and, having obtained an advance of\nfunds from the Russian Government, he, in 1859, tried a third time for\nhis \"pearl of St. Catherine,\" which, in 1853, he felt convinced had been\ndestroyed, and as to which he had nevertheless, in the meantime, been\ntroubled by fears that the good cause might be aided by some other than\nDr. Tischendorf discovering and publishing the \"priceless treasure,\"\nwhich, according to his previous statements, he must have felt convinced\ndid not longer exist. On this third journey the Doctor discovered \"the\nvery fragments which, fifteen years before, he had taken out of the\nbasket,\" \"and also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament\ncomplete, and, in addition, Barnabas and part of Hermas.\"\n\nWith wonderful preciseness, and with great audacity, Dr. Tischendorf\n_refers_ the transcription of the discovered Bible to the first half of\nthe fourth century. Have Dr. Tischendorf's patrons here ever read of MSS\ndiscovered in the same Convent of St. Catherine, at Sinai, of which an\naccount was published by Dr. Constantine Simonides, and concerning which\nthe _Westminster Review_ said, \"We share the suspicions, to use the\ngentlest word which occurs to us, entertained, we believe, by all\ncompetent critics and antiquarians.\"\n\nIn 1863 Dr. Tischendorf published, at the cost of the Russian Emperor, a\nsplendid but very costly edition of his Sinaitic MS in columns, with a\nLatin introduction. The book is an expensive one, and copies of it are\nnot very plentiful in England. Perhaps the Religious Tract Society have\nnot contributed to its circulation so liberally as did the pious Emperor\nof all the Russias. Surely a text on which our own is to be\nre-constructed ought to be in the hands at least of every English\nclergyman and Young Men's Christian Association.\n\n\"Christianity,\" writes Dr. Tischendorf, \"does not, strictly speaking,\nrest on the moral teaching of Jesus;\" \"it rests on his person only.\" \"If\nwe are in error in believing in the person of Christ as taught in the\nGospels, then the Church herself is in error, and must be given up as a\ndeception.\" \"All the world knows that our Gospels are nothing else than\nbiographies of Christ.\" \"We have no other source of information with\nrespect to the life of Jesus.\"\n\nSo that, according to the Religious Tract Society and its advocate, if\nthe credibility of the Gospel biography be successfully impugned, then\nthe foundations of Christianity are destroyed. It becomes, therefore, of\nthe highest importance to show that the biography of Jesus, as given in\nthe four Gospels, is absolutely incredible and self-contradictory.\n\nIt is alleged in the Society's preface that all the objections of\ninfidelity have been hitherto unavailing. This is, however, not true. It\nis rather the fact that the advocates of Christianity when defeated on\none point have shuffled to another, either quietly passing the topic\nwithout further debate, or loudly declaring that the point abandoned was\nreally so utterly unimportant that it was extremely foolish in the\nassailant to regard it as worthy attack, and that, in any case, all the\narguments had been repeatedly refuted by previous writers.\n\nTo the following objections to the Gospel narrative the writer refuses\nto accept as answer, that they have been previously discussed and\ndisposed of.\n\nThe Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popularly associated\nwith each do not tell us the hour, or the day, or the month, or--save\nLuke--the year, in which Jesus was born. The only point on which the\ncritical divines, who have preceded Dr. Tischendorf, generally agree is,\nthat Jesus was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology,\ncollated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us a period\nof more than seven years within which to place the date. So confused is\nthe story as to the time of the birth, that while Matthew would make\nJesus born in the lifetime of Herod, Luke would fix the period of\nJesus's birth as after Herod's death.\n\nChristmas itself is a day surrounded with curious ceremonies of pagan\norigin, and in no way serving to fix the 25th December as the natal day.\nYet the exact period at which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the\nworld to redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of Adam's\nancient sin, should be of some importance.\n\nNor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of Christ. The\nJews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus, reproached him that he\nought to have been born at Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of\nNazareth. Jesus never appears to have said to either, \"I was born at\nBethlehem.\" In Matthew ii, 6, we find a quotation from the prophet: \"And\nthou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least amongst the\nprinces of Juda, for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule\nmy people-Israel.\" Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem, and\nLuke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child to Bethlehem\nfor that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is done to fulfil a prophecy.\nMicah v, 2, the only place in which similar words occur, is not a\nprophecy referring to Jesus at all. The words are: \"But thou Bethlehem\nEphratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of\nthee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose\ngoings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.\" This is not\nquoted correctly in Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining of\nlanguage to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on which\nChristianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in default of\ncontemporary corroboration. The difficulties are not lessened in tracing\nthe parentage. In Matthew i,\n\n17, it is stated that \"the generations from Abraham to David are\nfourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into\nBabylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into\nBabylon unto Christ are fourteen generations.\" Why has Matthew made such\na mistake in his computation of the genealogies--in the last division we\nhave only thirteen names instead of fourteen, even including the name of\nJesus? Is this one of the cases of \"painful uncertainty\" which has\ninduced the Religious Tract Society and Dr. Tischendorf to wish to set\naside the _textus receptus_ altogether?\n\nFrom David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament twenty\ngenerations; in Matthew, seventeen generations; and in Luke,\ntwenty-three generations. In Matthew from David to Christ there are\ntwenty-eight generations, and in Luke from David to Christ forty-three\ngenerations. Yet, according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the\ncredibility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history that the\nfoundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy in the first Gospel\narriving at David traces to Jesus through Solomon; the third Gospel from\nDavid traces through Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are\nSolomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old\nTestament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah, whom I presume\nto be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd Chronicles xxii, 11, we find one\nJoash, who is not mentioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in\nMatthew is correct, why is the name not mentioned? Amaziah is mentioned\nin chap. xxiv, v. 27, and in chap. xxvi, v. 1, Uzziah, neither of whom\n[is] mentioned in Matthew, where Ozias is named as begetting Jotham,\nwhen in fact three generations of men have come in between. In Matthew\nand Luke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel, while in 1\nChronicles iii, 17-19, Zerubbabel is stated to be the son of Pedaiah,\nthe brother of Salathiel. Matthew says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel\n(chap. i, v. 13). Luke iii, 27, says Zorobabel's son was Rhesa. The Old\nTestament contradicts both, and gives Meshullam, and Hananiah, and\nShelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii, 19), as the names of\nZorobabel's children. Is this another piece of evidence in favor of Dr.\nTischendorfs admirable doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct the\ntext?\n\nIn the genealogies of Matthew and Luke there are only three names\nagreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel, Zorobabel, and\nJoseph--all the rest are utterly different. The attempts at explanation\nwhich have been hitherto offered, in order to reconcile these\ngenealogies, are scarcely creditable to the intellects of the Christian\napologists. They allege that \"Joseph, who by nature was the son of\nJacob, in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob\nwere brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who was the elder, dying\nwithout issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow; in\nconsequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the\nson of Heli.\" This is pure invention to get over a difficulty--an\ninvention not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you suppose\nthat these two persons were brothers, then unless you invent a death of\nthe mother's last husband and the widow's remarriage Jacob and Heli\nwould be the sons of the same father, and the list of the ancestors\nshould be identical in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty\nthe pious do this. They say, although brothers, they were only\nhalf-brothers; although sons of the same mother, they were not sons of\nthe same father, but had different fathers. If so, how is it that\nSalathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and son in both genealogies?\nAnother fashion of accounting for the contradiction is to give one as\nthe genealogy of Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. \"Which?\"\n\"Luke,\" it is said. Why Luke? what are Luke's words? Luke speaks of\nJesus being, \"as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of\nHeli.\" When Luke says Joseph, the son of Heli, [does] he mean Mary, the\ndaughter of Heli? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another?\nbecause if that argument is worth anything, then in every case where a\nman has a theory which disagrees with the text, he may say the text\nmeans something else. If this argument be permitted we must abandon in\nScriptural criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to\nconvey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant daughter, why does\nthe same word mean son in every other case all through the remainder of\nthe genealogy? And if the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and\nthe genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have any point\nof agreement at all until brought to David. They, nevertheless, do agree\nand contradict each other in several places, destroying the probability\nof their being intended as distinct genealogies. There is some evidence\nthat Luke does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself. We\nare told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered because he was of\nthe house of David: if it had been Mary it would have surely said so. As\naccording to the Christian theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus,\nit is not unfair to ask how it can be credible that Jesus's genealogy\ncould be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph?\n\nSo far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to which the\ngenealogy relates) her cousinship to Elizabeth would make her rather\nappear to belong to the tribe of Levi.\n\nTo discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and birth would\nbe to insult the human understanding. The mythologies of Greece, Italy,\nand India, give many precedents of sons of Gods miraculously born.\nItaly, Greece, and India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The\nincarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ. A miraculous\nbirth would be scouted today as monstrous; antedate it 2,000 years and\nwe worship it as miracle.\n\nMatt. i, 22, 23, says: \"Now all this was done, that it might be\nfulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a\nvirgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall\ncall his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.\" This\nis supposed to be a quotation from Isaiah vii, 14-16: \"Therefore the\nLord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and\nbear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he\neat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For\nbefore the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the\nland that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings.\"\n\nBut in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate quotation, the\nvery words are omitted which would show its utter inapplicability to\nJesus. Even in those which are given, the agreement is not complete.\nJesus was not called Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a\nvirgin, this does not help the identity, as the word OLME in Isaiah,\nrendered \"virgin\" in our version, does not convey the notion of\nvirginity, for which the proper word is BeThULE; OLME is used of a\nyouthful spouse recently married. The allusion to the land being\nforsaken of both her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the\npassage is prophetic of Jesus.\n\nThe story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one Gospel, to Mary in\nthe other, is hardly credible on any explanation. If you assume the\nannunciations as made by a God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should,\nat least, have been to prevent doubt of Mary's chastity; but the\nannunciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by Joseph.\nTwo annunciations are made, one of them in a dream to Joseph, when he is\nsuspicious as to the state of his betrothed wife; the other made by the\nangel Gabriel (whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who\napparently conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although\nwith child not by her intended husband. The statement--that Mary being\nfound with child by the Holy Ghost, her husband, not willing to make her\na public example, was minded to put her away privily--is quite\nincredible. If Joseph found her with child _by the Holy Ghost_, how\ncould he even think of making a public example of her shame when there\nwas nothing of which she could be ashamed--nothing, if he believed in\nthe Holy Ghost, of which he need have been ashamed himself, nothing\nwhich need have induced him to wish to put her away privily. It is\nclear--according to Matthew--that Mary was found with child, and that\nthe Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined by Joseph until after he\nhad dreamed about the matter.\n\nAlthough the birth of Jesus was specially announced by an angel, and\nalthough Mary sang a joyful song consequent on the annunciation,\ncorroborated by her cousin's greeting, yet when Simeon speaks of the\nchild, in terms less extraordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it\nand do not understand it. Why were they surprised? Is it credible that\nso little regard was paid to the miraculous annunciation? Or is this\nanother case of the \"painful uncertainty\" alluded to by Dr. Teschendorf?\n\nAgain, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in the temple, and he\nsays, \"Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?\" they do\nnot know what he means, so that either what the angel had said had been\nof little effect, or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can any\nreliance be placed on a narrative so contradictory? An angel was\nspecially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be born is the\nSon of God, and yet that mother is astonished when her son says, \"Wist\nye not I must be about my father's business?\"\n\nThe birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made publicly known by\nmeans of certain wise men. These men saw his star in the East, but it\ndid not tell them much, for they were obliged to come and ask\ninformation from Herod the King. Is astrology credible? Herod inquired\nof the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right,\nif he said, \"The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by\ntheir means,\" for these chief priests misquoted to suit their purposes,\nand invented a false prophecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a\nfew words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after they\nknew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went before them,\nuntil it came and stood over where the young child was. The credibility\nof this will be better understood if the reader notice some star, and\nthen see how many houses it will be over. Luke does not seem to have\nbeen aware of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells\nsome shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adventure does not\nappear to have happened in the reign of Herod at all. Is it credible\nthat Jesus was born twice? After the wise men had left Jesus, an angel\nwarned Joseph to flee with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly,\nand remained there with the young child and his mother until the death\nof Herod; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a prophecy. On\nreferring to Hosea xi, 1,\n\nwe find the words have no reference whatever to Jesus, and that,\ntherefore, either the tale of the flight is invented as a fulfilment of\nthe prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support the tale of the\nflight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at all in his childhood.\nDirectly after the birth of the child his parents instead of flying away\nbecause of persecution into Egypt, went peacefully up to Jerusalem to\nfulfil all things according to the law, returned thence to Nazareth, and\napparently dwelt there, going up to Jerusalem every year until Jesus was\ntwelve years of age.\n\nIn Matthew ii, 15, we are told that Jesus remained in Egypt, \"That it\nmight be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,\nOut of Egypt have I called my son.\" In Hosea ii, 1, we read, \"When\nIsrael was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt.\"\nIn no other prophet is there any similar text. This not only is not a\nprophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference to the Jewish\nExodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manufactured to give an air of\ncredibility to the Gospel history, or how will the Religious Tract\nSociety explain it? The Gospel writings betray either a want of good\nfaith, or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the mode\nadopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testament?\n\nWhen Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptised by John\nin the river Jordan. John, who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade\nhim directly he saw him; but, according to the writer of the fourth\nGospel, he knew him not, and had, therefore, no occasion to forbid him.\nGod is an \"invisible\" \"spirit,\" whom no man hath seen (John i, 18), or\ncan see (Exodus xxxiii, 20); but the man John saw the spirit of God\ndescending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at that time was in\nheaven, from whence he said, \"This is my beloved son, in whom I am well\npleased.\" Although John heard this from God's own mouth, he some time\nafter sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really\nthe Christ (Matthew xi, 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility of this\nstory, says Dr. Teschendorf, that Christianity rests like a building on\nits foundations.\n\nIt is utterly impossible John could have known and not have known Jesus\nat the same time. And if, as the New Testament states, God is infinite\nand invisible, it is incredible that as Jesus stood in the river to be\nbaptised, the Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove,\nand that God from heaven said, \"This is my beloved son, in whom I am\nwell pleased.\" Was the indivisible and invisible spirit of God separated\nin three distinct and two separately visible persons? How do the\nReligious Tract Society reconcile this with the Athanasian Creed?\n\nThe baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the language used as to\nJohn, who baptised Jesus. It is said, \"This is he that was spoken of by\nthe prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,\nprepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.\" Isaiah xl,\n1-5, is, \"Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye\ncomfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is\naccomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of\nthe Lord's hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in\nthe wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the\ndesert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every\nmountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made\nstraight, and the rough places plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be\nrevealed.\" These verses have not the most remote relation to John? And\nthis manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of bolstering up a tale,\nserves to prove that the writer of the Gospel tries by these to impart\nan air of credibility to an otherwise incredible story.\n\nImmediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the Spirit into the\nwilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There he fasts forty days and\nforty nights.\n\nJohn says, in chapter i, 35, \"Again, the next day after, John stood and\ntwo of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said,\nbehold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they\nfollowed Jesus.\" Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, \"The day following\nJesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto\nhim, follow me.\" And in chapter ii, 1, he says, \"And the third day there\nwas a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;\nand both Jesus was called and his disciples unto the marriage.\"\nAccording to Matthew, there can be no doubt that immediately after the\nbaptism Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And\nwe are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil and fasting in the\nwilderness, and at the same time feasting at a marriage in Cana of\nGalilee? Is it possible to believe that Jesus actually did fast forty\ndays and forty nights? If Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man, in\nwhat capacity did he fast? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast\nwould be a mockery; and the account that he became a hungered must be\nwrong. It is barely possible that in some very abnormal condition or\ncataleptic state, or state of trance, a man might exist, with very\nslight nourishment or without food, but that a man could walk about,\nspeak, and act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food\nis simply an impossibility.\n\nIs the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible? If Jesus be God, can\nthe Devil tempt God? A clergyman of the Church of England writing on\nthis says: \"That the Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is\ncertainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more remote age,\nhave appeared among the sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to\ntorment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and\nliterally through the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then\nto the topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable, it is an\ninsult to our understanding, and an affront to our great creator and\nredeemer.\" Supposing, despite the monstrosity of such a supposition, an\nactual Devil--and this involves the dilemma that the Devil must either\nbe God-created, or God's co-eternal rival; the first supposition being\ninconsistent with God's goodness, and the second being inconsistent with\nhis power; but supposing such a Devil, is it credible that the Devil\nshould tempt the Almighty maker of the universe with \"all these will I\ngive thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me?\"\n\nIn the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an uncertainty as to\none, whose name was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is in\nMatthew x, 3, alone that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned,\nthus--\"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus.\" We are told, on this\npoint, by certain Biblicists, that some early MSS have not the words\n\"whose surname was Thaddaeus,\" and that these words have probably been\ninserted to reconcile the Gospel according to Matthew with that\nattributed to Mark. In the English version of the Rheims Testament used\nin this country by our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation\nbetween Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words \"Lebbaeus\nwhose surname was,\" leaving only the name \"Thaddaeus\" in Matthew's text.\nThe revised version of the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims\nversion, and the omission will probably meet with the entire concurrence\nof Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society, now they boast\nautograph letters of approval from the infallible head of the Catholic\nChurch. If Matthew x, 3, and Mark iii,\n\n18, be passed as reconciled, although the first calls the twelfth\ndisciple Lebbaeus, and the second gives him the name Thaddaeus; there is\nyet the difficulty that in Luke vi, 16, corroborated by John xiv, 22,\nthere is a disciple spoken of as \"Judas, not Iscariot,\" \"Judas, the\nbrother of James.\" Commentators have endeavored to clear away this last\ndifficulty by declaring that Thaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the\nsame meaning as Judas. This has been answered by the objection that if\nMatthew's Gospel uses Thad-daeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to\nspeak of Thaddaeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further\nobjected also that while there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew\noriginal for the Gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the\nslightest pretence for alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. The\nGospels also leave us in some doubt as to whether Matthew is Levi, or\nwhether Matthew and Levi are two different persons.\n\nThe account of the calling of Peter is replete with contradictions.\nAccording to Matthew, when Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a\nvessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of\nGalilee. Jesus walking by the sea said to them--\n\n\"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men.\" The two brothers did\nso, and they became Christ's disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one\nwas with him but his brother Andrew. A little further on, the two sons\nof Zebedee were in a ship with their father mending nets, and these\nlatter were separately called. From John, we learn that Andrew was\noriginally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first\nsaw Jesus, Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter who,\nif fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him \"we have found\nthe Messiah,\" and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said,\n\"Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas.\" There\nis no mention in John of the sons of Zebedee being a little further on,\nor of any fishing in the sea of Galilee. This call is clearly on land.\nLuke's Gospel states that when the call took place, Jesus and Peter were\nboth at sea. Jesus had been preaching to the people, who pressing upon\nhim, he got into Simon's ship, from which he preached. After this he\ndirected Simon to put out into the deep and let down the nets. Simon\nanswered, \"Master, we have toiled all night and taken nothing;\nnevertheless at thy word I will let down the net.\" No sooner was this\ndone, than the net was filled to breaking, and Simon's partners, the two\nsons of Zebedee, came to help, when at the call of Jesus, they brought\ntheir ships to land, and followed him.\n\nIs it credible that there were three several calls, or that the Gospels\nbeing inspired, you could have three contradictory versions of the same\nevent? Has the story been here \"painfully modified,\" or how do Dr.\nTischendorf and the Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it\ncredible that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon's house, and\ncured Simon's wife's mother, before the call of Simon, but did not go to\nSimon's house for that purpose, until after the call of Simon, as\nrelated in Matthew? It is useless to reply that the date of Jesus's\nvisit is utterly unimportant, when we are told that it is upon the\ncredibility of the complete narrative that Christianity must rest. Each\nstone is important to the building, and it is not competent for the\nChristian advocate to regard as useless any word which the Holy Ghost\nhas considered important enough to reveal.\n\nAre the miracle stories credible? Every ancient nation has had its\nmiracle workers, but modern science has relegated all miracle history to\nrealms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion, or fraud. Can Christian\nmiracles be made, the exceptions? Is it likely that the nations amongst\nwhom the dead were restored to life would have persistently ignored the\nauthor of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if intended\nto convince the Jews, was God unable to render his intentions effective?\nThat five thousand persons should be fed with five loaves and two\nfishes, and that an apparent excess should remain beyond the original\nstock, is difficult to believe; but that shortly after this--Jesus\nhaving to again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons--his\nown disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder from whence the\nfood was to be derived, is certainly startlingly incredible. If this\nexhibition of incredulity were pardonable on the part of the twelve\napostles, living witnesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable\nthe unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract Society\nseek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events all contrary to\nprobability, and with nineteen centuries intervening.\n\nThe casting out the devils presents phaenomena requiring considerable\ncredulity, especially the story of the devils and the swine. To-day\ninsanity is never referable to demoniacal possession, but eighteen\nhundred years ago the subject of lunacy had not been so patiently\ninvestigated as it has been since. That one man could now be tenanted by\nseveral devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the\npresent generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the repudiation\nof its present possibility can hardly be consistent with implicit\ncredence in its ancient history. That the devils and God should hold\nconverse together, although not without parallel in the book of Job, is\ninconsistent with the theory of an infinitely good Deity; that the\ndevils should address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be\nallowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous; yet all this\nhelps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf relies. That\nJesus being God should pray to his Father that \"the cup might pass from\"\nhim is so incredible that even the faithful ask us to regard it as\nmystery. That an angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty\nGod, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so prominently preached\nto thousands, the priests should need any one like Judas to betray the\nfounder of Christianity with a kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging\nthe dealers, his wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus's\ndaughter should have secured him, if not the nation's love, faith, and\nadmiration, at least a national reputation and notoriety. It is not\ncredible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a kiss that the latter should have\nbeen arrested upon his own statement that he was Jesus. That Peter\nshould have had so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times\nin a few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had remained\nunconvinced by his personal intercourse with the incarnate Deity. The\nmere blunders in the story of the denial sink into insignificance in\nface of this major difficulty. Whether the cock did or did not crow\nbefore the third denial, whether Peter was or was not in the same\napartment with Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively\ntrifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are based may\nbe the consequence of the errors which Dr. Tischendorf says have crept\ninto the sacred writings.\n\nJesus said, \"as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of\nthe whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the\nheart of the earth.\" Jesus was crucified on Friday, was buried on Friday\nevening, and yet the first who went to the grave on the night of\nSaturday as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of Jesus\nalready gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three days and three nights in\nthe grave? Is there any proof that his body remained in the grave for\nthree hours? Who went first to the grave? was it Mary Magdalene alone,\nas in John, or two Marys as in Matthew, or the two Marys and Salome as\nin Mark, or the two Marys, Joanna, and several unnamed women as in Luke?\nTo whom did did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary\nMagdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in Luke, or to the\ntwo Marys near the sepulchre, as in Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish\nand honeycomb by a dead God credible? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the\nvery day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly six weeks\nintervene?\n\nIs this history credible, contained as it is in four contradictory\nbiographies, outside which biographies we have, as Dr. Tisch-endorf\nadmits, \"no other source of information with respect to the life of\nJesus?\" This history of an earth-born Deity, descended through a\ncrime-tainted ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through\none who was not his father; this history of an infinite God nursed as a\nbaby, growing through childhood to manhood like any frail specimen of\nhumanity; this history, garnished with bedevilled men, enchanted fig\ntree, myriads of ghosts, and scores of miracles, and by such garnishment\nmade more akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history; this\npicture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as man;\nimmutability subject to human passions and infirmities; the creator come\nto die, yet wishing to escape the death which shall bring peace to his\nGod-tormented creatures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own\nprayer; God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor; God the immortal\ndying, and in the agony of the death-throes--stronger than the strong\nman's will--crying with almost the last effort of his dying breath, that\nhe being God, is God forsaken!\n\nIf all this be credible, what story is there any man need hesitate to\nbelieve?\n\nDr. Tischendorf asks how it has been possible to impugn the credibility\nof the four Gospels, and replies that this has been done by denying that\nthe Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. In the\npreceding pages it has been shown that the credibility of the Gospel\nnarrative is impugned because it is uncorroborated by contemporary\nhistory, because it is self-contradictory, and because many of its\nincidents are _prima facie_ most improbable, and some of them utterly\nimpossible. Even English Infidels are quite prepared to admit that the\nfour Gospels may be quite anonymous; and yet, that their anonymous\ncharacter need be of no weight as an argument against their truth. All\nthat is urged on this head is that the advocates of the Gospel history\nhave sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise unreliable\nnarratives by a pretence that some of the Evangelists, at least, were\neyewitnesses of the events they refer to. Dr. Teschendorf says: \"The\ncredibility of a writer clearly depends on the interval of time which\nlies between him and the events which he describes. The farther the\nnarrator is removed from the facts which he lays before us the more his\nclaims to credibility are reduced in value.\" Presuming truthfulness in\nintention for any writer, and his ability to comprehend the facts he is\nnarrating, and his freedom from a prejudice which may distort the\npicture he intends to paint correctly with his pen: we might admit the\ncorrectness of the passage we have quoted; but can these always be\npresumed in the case of the authors of the Gospels? On the contrary, a\npresumption in an exactly opposite direction may be fairly raised from\nthe fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the Christian world\nwas flooded with forged testimonies in favor of the biography of Jesus,\nor in favor of his disciples.\n\nA writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ observes: \"To say nothing of such\nacknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic constitutions and liturgies, and\nthe several spurious Gospels, the question of the genuineness of the\nalleged remains of the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is\nvery material. Any genuine remains of the 'Apostle' Barnabas, of Hermas,\nthe contemporary (Romans xvi, 14), and Clement, the highly commended and\ngifted fellow laborer of St. Paul (Phil, iv, 3), could scarcely be\nregarded as less sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally\nwe know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the present day,\nthe critics best competent to determine it, have agreed in opinion, that\nthe extant writings ascribed to Barnabas and Hermas are wholly\nspurious--the frauds of a later age. How much suspicion attaches to the\n1st Epistle of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally\nrejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times it has never\nbeen allowed the place expressly assigned to it among the canonical\nbooks prefixed to the celebrated Alexandrian MS, in which the only known\ncopy of it is included. It must not be forgotten that Ignatius expressly\nlays claim to inspiration, that Irenaeus quotes Hermas as Scripture, and\nOrigen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in modestly\ndisclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles, clearly implies\nthere would have been no essential distinction in the way of his being\nranked in the same order. But the question is, how are these pretensions\nsubstantiated?\" So far the _Edinburgh Review_, certainly not an Infidel\npublication.\n\nEusebius, in his \"Ecclesiastical History,\" admits the existence of many\nspurious gospels and epistles, and some writings put forward by him as\ngenuine, such as the correspondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have\nsince been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from\nthis that many of the most early Christians considered the then existing\ntestimonies insufficient to prove the history of Jesus, and good reason\nis certainly afforded for carefully examining the whole of the evidences\nthey have bequeathed us.\n\nOn p. 48, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose writings belong to the\nextreme end of the second century, as though that Bishop must be taken\nas vouching the four Gospels as we now have them. Yet, if the testimony\nof Irenaeus be reliable (\"Against Heresies,\" Book III, cap. i.) the\nGospel attributed to Matthew was believed to have been composed in\nHebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a Messiah of the\nroyal line of David, Matthew having the same desire to a yet greater\ndegree, strove to give them full satisfaction. This may account for some\nof the genealogical curiosities to which we have drawn attention, but\nhardly renders Matthew's Gospel more reliable; and how can the\nsuggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Matthew penned the\nfirst Gospel, which has only existed in Greek? Irenaeus, too, flatly\ncontradicts the Gospels by declaring that the ministry of Jesus extended\nover ten years and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age (\"Against\nHeresies,\" Book II, cap. 22).\n\nIf the statement of Irenaeus (\"Against Heresies,\" Book III, cap. xi)\nthat the fourth Gospel was written to refute the errors of Cerinthus and\nNicolaus, have any value, then the actual date of issue of the fourth\nGospel will be considerably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf's\nstatement that Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is not\neven supported by the quotation on which he relies. All that is said in\nthe passage quoted (Eusebius, \"Ecc. Hist,\" Book V, cap. 20) is that\nIrenaeus when he was a child heard Polycarp repeat from memory the\ndiscourses of John and others concerning Jesus. If the Gospels had\nexisted in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy to\nhave read them from the MS as to repeat them from memory. Dr.\nTischendorf might also have added that the letter to Florinus, whence he\ntakes the passage on which he relies, exists only in the writings of\nEusebius, to whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence\nsince abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says: \"Any testimony of\nPolycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back to the Evangelist\nhimself, for Polycarp, in speaking to Irenaeus of this Gospel as the\nwork of his master, St. John, must have learned from the lips of the\napostle himself, whether he was its author or not.\" Now, what evidence\nis there that Polycarp ever said a single word as to the authorship of\nthe fourth Gospel, or of any Gospel, or that he even said that John had\npenned a single word? In the Epistle to the Philippians (the only\nwriting attributed to Polycarp for which any genuine character is even\npretended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is there even a\nsingle passage in the Epistle which can be identified with any passage\nin the Gospel of John.\n\nSurely Dr. Tischendorf forgot, in the eager desire to make his witnesses\nbear good testimony, that the highest duty of an advocate is to make the\ntruth clear, not to put forward a pleasantly colored falsehood to\ndeceive the ignorant. It is not even true that Irenaeus ever pretends\nthat Polycarp in any way vouched our fourth Gospel as having been\nwritten by John, and yet Dr. Tischendorf had the cool audacity to say\n\"there is nothing more damaging to the doubters of the authenticity of\nSt. John's Gospel than this testimony of St. Polycarp.\" Do the Religious\nTract Society regard English Infidels as so utterly ignorant that they\nthus intentionally seek to suggest a falsehood, or are the Council of\nthe Religious Tract Society themselves unable to test the accuracy of\nthe statements put forward on their behalf by the able decipherer of\nillegible parchments? It is too much to suspect the renowned Dr.\nConstantine Tischendorf of ignorance, yet even the coarse English\nsceptic regrets that the only other alternative will be to denounce him\nas a theological charlatan.\n\nDr. Mosheim, writing on behalf of Christianity, says that the Epistle of\nPolycarp to the Philippians is by some treated as genuine and by others\nas spurious, and that it is no easy matter to decide. Many critics, of\nno mean order, class it amongst the apostolic Christian forgeries, but\nwhether the Epistle be genuine or spurious, it contains no quotation\nfrom, it makes no reference to, the Gospel of John.\n\nTo what is said of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, it\nis enough to note that all these are after A.D. 150. Irenaeus may be put\n177 to 200, Tertullian about 193, and Clement of Alexandria as\ncommencing the third century.\n\nOne of Dr. Tischendorf s most audacious flourishes is that (p. 49) with\nreference to the Canon of Muratori, which we are told \"enumerates the\nbooks of the New Testament which, from the first, were considered\ncanonical and sacred,\" and which \"was written a little after the age of\nPius I, about A.D. 170.\"\n\nFirst the anonymous fragment contains books which were never accepted as\ncanonical; next, it is quite impossible to say when or by whom it was\nwritten or what was its original language. Mura-tori, who discovered the\nfragment in 1740, conjectured that it was written about the end of the\nsecond or beginning of the third century, but it is noteworthy that\nneither Eusebius nor any other of the ecclesiastical advocates of the\nthird, fourth, or fifth centuries, ever refers to it. It may be the\ncompilation of any monk at any date prior to 1740, and is utterly\nvalueless as evidence.\n\nDr. Tischendorfs style is well exemplified by the positive manner in\nwhich he fixes the date A.D. 139 to the first apology of Justin,\nalthough a critic so \"learned\" as the unrivalled Dr. Tischendorf could\nnot fail to be aware that more than one writer has supported the view\nthat the date of the first apology was not earlier than A.D. 145, and\nothers have contended for A.D. 150. The Benedictine editors of Justin's\nworks support the latter date. Dr. Kenn argues for A.D. 155-160. On page\n63, the Religious Tract Society's champion appeals to the testimony of\nJustin Martyr, but in order not to shock the devout while convincing the\nprofane, he omits to mention that more than half the writings once\nattributed to Justin Martyr are now abandoned, as either of doubtful\ncharacter or actual forgeries, and that Justin's value as a witness is\nconsiderably weakened by the fact that he quotes the acts of Pilate and\nthe Sybilline Oracles as though they were reliable evidence, when in\nfact they are both admitted specimens of \"a Christian forgery.\" But what\ndoes Justin testify as to the Gospels? Does he say that Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and John were their writers? On the contrary, not only do the\nnames of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never occur as Evangelists in the\nwritings of Justin, but he actually mentions facts and sayings as to\nJesus, which are not found in either of the four Gospels. The very words\nrendered Gospels only occur where they are strongly suspected to be\ninterpolated, Justin usually speaking of some writings which he calls\n\"memorials\" or \"memoirs of the Apostles.\"\n\nDr. Tischendorf urges that in the writings of Justin the Gospels are\nplaced side by side with the prophets, and that \"this undoubtedly places\nthe Gospels in the list of canonical books.\" If this means that there is\nany statement in Justin capable of being so construed, then Dr.\nTischendorf was untruthful. Justin does quote specifically the Sybilline\noracles, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He quotes statements as\nto Jesus, which may be found in the apocryphal Gospels, and which are\nnot found in ours, so that if the evidence of Justin Martyr be taken, it\ncertainly does not tend to prove, even in the smallest degree, that four\nGospels were specially regarded with reverence in his day. The Rev. W.\nSanday thinks that Justin did not assign an exclusive authority to our\nGospels, and that he made use also of other documents no longer extant\n(\"Gospels in 2nd Century,\" p. 117).\n\nOn p. 94 it is stated that \"as early as the time of Justin the\nexpression 'the Evangel' was applied to the four Gospels.\" This\nstatement by Dr. Tischendorf and its publication by the Religious Tract\nSociety call for the strongest condemnation. Nowhere in the writings of\nJustin are the words \"the Evangel\" applied to the four Gospels.\n\nLardner only professes to discover two instances in which the word\nanglicised by Tischendorf as \"Evangel,\" occurs; [--Greek--] and\n[--Greek--] the second being expressly pointed out by Schleiermacher as\nan interpolation, and as an instance in which a marginal note has been\nincorporated with the text; nor would one occurrence of such a word\nprove that any book or books were so known by Justin, as the word is\nmerely a compound of good and [--Greek--] message; nor is there the\nslightest foundation for the statement that in the time of Justin the\nword Evangel was ever applied to designate the four Gospels now\nattributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.\n\nDr. Tischendorf (p. 46) admits that the \"faith of the Church... would be\nseriously compromised\" if we do not find references to the Gospels in\nwritings between A.D. 100 and A.D. 150; and--while he does not directly\nassert--he insinuates that in such writings the Gospels were \"treated\nwith the greatest respect,\" or \"even already treated as canonical and\nsacred writings;\" and he distinctly affirms that the Gospels \"did see\nthe light\" during the \"Apostolic age,\" \"and before the middle of the\nsecond\" century \"our Gospels were held in the highest respect by the\nChurch,\" although for the affirmation, he neither has nor advances the\nshadow of evidence.\n\nThe phrases, \"Apostolic age\" and \"Apostolic fathers\" denote the first\ncentury of the Christian era, and those fathers who are supposed to have\nflourished during that period, and who are supposed to have seen or\nheard, or had the opportunity of seeing or hearing, either Jesus or some\none or more of the twelve Apostles. Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius,\nand Polycarp, are those whose names figure most familiarly in Christian\nevidences as Apostolic fathers. But the evidence from these Apostolic\nfathers is of a most unreliable character. Mosheim (\"Ecclesiastical\nHistory,\" cent. 1, cap. 2, sec. 3, 17) says that \"the Apostolic history\nis loaded with doubts, fables, and difficulties,\" and that not long\nafter Christ's ascension several histories were current of his life and\ndoctrines, full of \"pious frauds and fabulous wonders.\" Amongst these\nwere \"The Acts of Paul,\" \"The Revelation of Peter,\" \"The Gospel of\nPeter,\" \"The Gospel of Andrew,\" \"The Gospel of John,\" \"The Gospel of\nJames,\" \"The Gospel of the Egyptians,\" etc. The attempts often made to\nprove from the writings of Barnabas, Ignatius, etc., the prior existence\nof the four Gospels, though specifically unnamed, by similarity of\nphraseology in quotations, is a failure, even admitting for the moment\nthe genuineness of the Apostolic Scriptures, if the proof is intended to\ncarry the matter higher than that such and such statements were current\nin some form or other, at the date the fathers wrote. As good an\nargument might be made that some of the Gospel passages were adopted\nfrom the fathers. The fathers occasionally quote, as from the mouth of\nJesus, words which are not found in any of our four Gospels, and make\nreference to events not included in the Gospel narratives, clearly\nevidencing that even if the four documents ascribed to Matthew, Mark,\nLuke, and John, were in existence, they were not the only sources of\ninformation from which some of the Apostolic fathers derived their\nknowledge of Christianity, and evidencing also that the four Gospels had\nattained no such specific superiority as to entitle them to special\nmention by name.\n\nOf the epistle attributed to Barnabas, which is supposed by its\nsupporters to have been written in the latter part of the first century,\nwhich, Paley says, is probably genuine, which is classed by Eusebius as\nspurious (\"Ecclesiastical History,\" book iii, cap. 25), and which Dr.\nDonaldson does not hesitate for one moment in refusing to ascribe to\nBarnabas the Apostle (\"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" vol. i, p. 100), it is only\nnecessary to say that so far from speaking of the Gospels with the\ngreatest respect, it does not mention by name any one of the four\nGospels. There are some passages in Barnabas which are nearly identical\nin phraseology with some Gospel passages, and which it has been argued\nare quotations from one or other of the four Gospels, but which may\nequally be quotations from other Gospels, or from writings not in the\ncharacter of Gospels. There are also passages which are nearly identical\nwith several of the New Testament epistles, but even the great framer of\nChristian evidences, Lardner, declares his conviction that none of these\nlast-mentioned passages are quotations, or even allusions, to the\nPauline or other epistolary writings. Barnabas makes many quotations\nwhich clearly demonstrate that the four Gospels, if then in existence\nand if he had access to them, could not have been his only source of\ninformation as to the teachings of Jesus (e.g, cap. 7). \"The Lord\nenjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death.\"\n\"He required the goats to be of goodly aspect and similar, that when\nthey see him coming they may be amazed by the likeness to the goat.\"\nSays he, \"those who wish to behold me and lay hold of my kingdom, must\nthrough tribulation and suffering obtain me\" (cap. 12). And the Lord\nsaith, \"When a tree shall be bent down and again rise, and when blood\nshall flow out of the wound.\" Will the Religious Tract Society point out\nfrom which of the Gospels these are quoted?\n\nBarnabas (cap. 10) says that Moses forbade the Jews to eat weasel flesh,\n\"because that animal conceives with the mouth,\" and forbad them to eat\nthe hyena because that animal annually changes its sex. This father\nseems to have made a sort of _melange_ of some of the Pentateuchal\nordinances. He says (cap. 8) that the Heifer (mentioned in Numbers) was\na type of Jesus, that the _three_ (?) young men appointed to sprinkle,\ndenote Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that _wool was put upon a stick_\nbecause the kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, and (cap. 9)\nthat the 318 men _circumcised_ by Abraham stood for Jesus crucified.\nBarnabas also declared that the world was to come to an end in 6,000\nyears (\"Freethinker's Text-Book,\" part ii, p. 268). In the Sinaitic\nBible, the Epistle of St. Barnabas has now, happily for misguided\nChristians, been discovered in the original Greek. To quote the\ninimitable style of Dr. Tischendorf, \"while so much has been lost in the\ncourse of centuries by the tooth of time and the carelessness of\nignorant monks, an invisible eye had watched over this treasure, and\nwhen it was on the point of perishing in the fire, the Lord had decreed\nits deliverance;\" \"while critics have generally been divided between\nassigning it to the first or second decade of the second century, the\nSinaitic Bible, which has for the first time cleared up this question,\nhas led us to throw its composition as far back as the last decade of\nthe first century.\" A fine specimen of Christian evidence writing, cool\nassertion without a particle of proof and without the slightest reason\ngiven. How does the Siniatic MS, even if it be genuine, clear up the\nquestion of the date of St. Barnabas's Epistle? Dr. Tischendorf does not\ncondescend to tell us what has led the Christian advocate to throw back\nthe date of its composition? We are left entirely in the dark: in fact,\nwhat Dr. Tischendorf calls a \"throw back,\" is if you look at Lardner\njust the reverse. What does the epistle of Barnabas prove, even if it be\ngenuine? Barnabas quotes, by name, Moses and Daniel, but never Matthew,\nMark, Luke or John. Barnabas specifically refers to Deuteronomy and the\nprophets, but never to either of the four Gospels.\n\nThere is an epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, which has been\npreserved in a single MS only where it is coupled with another epistle\nrejected as spurious. Dr. Donaldson (\"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" vol. i, p.\n3) declares that who the Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed\ncannot with absolute certainty be determined. Both epistles stand on\nequal authority; one is rejected by Christians, the other is received.\nIn this epistle while there is a distinct reference to an Epistle by\nPaul to the Corinthians, there is no mention by name of the four\nGospels, nor do any of the words attributed by Clement to Jesus agree\nfor any complete quotation with anyone of the Gospels as we have them.\nThe Rev. W. Sanday is frank enough to concede \"that Clement is not\nquoting directly from our Gospels.\"\n\nIs it probable that Clement would have mentioned a writing by Paul, and\nyet have entirely ignored the four Gospels, if he had known that they\nhad then existed? And could they have easily existed in the Christian\nworld in his day without his knowledge? If anyone takes cap. xxv of this\nepistle and sees the phoenix given as a historic fact, and as evidence\nfor the reality of the resurrection, he will be better able to\nappreciate the value of this so-called epistle of Clement.\n\nThe letters of Ignatius referred to by Dr. Tischendorf are regarded by\nMosheim as laboring under many difficulties, and embarrassed with much\nobscurity. Even Lardner, doing his best for such evidences, says, that\nif we find matters in the Epistles inconsistent with the notion that\nIgnatius was the writer, it is better to regard such passages as\ninterpolations, than to reject the Epistles entirely, especially in the\n\"scarcity\" of such testimonies.\n\nThere are fifteen epistles of which eight are undisputedly forgeries. Of\nthe remaining seven there are two versions, a long and a short version,\none of which must be corrupt, both of which may be. These seven\nepistles, however, are in no case to be accepted with certainty as those\nof Ignatius. Dr. Cureton contends that only three still shorter epistles\nare genuine (\"Ante-Nicene Fathers,\" vol. i, pp. 137 to 143). The Rev. W.\nSanday treats the three short ones as probably genuine, waiving the\nquestion as to the others (\"Gospels in Second Century,\" p. 77, and see\npreface to sixth edition \"Supernatural Religion\"). Ignatius, however,\neven if he be the writer of the epistles attributed to him, never\nmentions either of the four Gospels. In the nineteenth chapter of the\nEpistle to the Ephesians, there is a statement made as to the birth and\ndeath of Jesus, not to be found in either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.\n\nIf the testimony of the Ignatian Epistles is reliable, then it vouches\nthat in that early age there were actually Christians who denied the\ndeath of Jesus. A statement as to Mary in cap. nineteen of the Epistle\nto the Ephesians is not to be found in any portion of the Gospels. In\nhis Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius, attacking those who denied the\nreal existence of Jesus, would have surely been glad to quote the\nevidence of eye witnesses like Matthew and John, if such evidence had\nexisted in his day. In cap. eight of the Epistles to the Philadelphians,\nIgnatius says, \"I have heard of some who say: Unless I find it in the\narchives I will not believe the Gospel. And when I said it is written,\nthey answered that remains to be proved.\" This is the most distinct\nreference to any Christian writings, and how little does this support\nDr. Tischendorf's position. From which of our four Gospels could\nIgnatius have taken the words, \"I am not an incorporeal demon,\" which he\nputs into the mouth of Jesus in cap. iii, the epistle to the Smyrnaeans?\nDr. Tischendorf does admit that the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles is\nnot of decisive value; might he not go farther and say, that as proof of\nthe four Gospels it is of no value at all?\n\nOn page 70, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Hippolytus without any qualification.\nSurely the English Religious Tract Society might have remembered that\nDodwell says, that the name of Hippolytus had been so abused by\nimpostors, that it was not easy to distinguish any of his writings. That\nMill declares that, with one exception, the pieces extant under his name\nare all spurious. That, except fragments in the writings of opponents,\nthe works of Hip-polytus are entirely lost. Yet the Religious Tract\nSociety permit testimony so tainted to be put forward under their\nauthority, to prove the truth of Christian history. The very work which\nDr. Tischendorf pretends to quote is not even mentioned by Eusebius, in\nthe list he gives of the writings of Hippolytus.\n\nOn page 94, Dr. Tischendorf states that Basilides, before A.D. 138, and\nValentinus, about A.D. 140, make use of three out of four Gospels, the\nfirst using John and Luke, the second, Matthew, Luke, and John. What\nwords of either Basilides or Valentinus exist anywhere to justify this\nreckless assertion? Was Dr. Tisch-endorf again presuming on the utter\nignorance of those who are likely to read his pamphlet? The Religious\nTract Society are responsible for Dr. Tischendorf s allegations, which\nit is impossible to support with evidence.\n\nThe issue raised is not whether the followers of Basilides or the\nfollowers of Valentinus may have used these gospels, but whether there\nis a particle of evidence to justify Dr. Tischendorf s declaration, that\nBasilides and Valentinus themselves used the above-named gospels. That\nthe four Gospels were well known during the second half of the first\ncentury is what Dr. Tischendorf undertook to prove, and statements\nattributed to Basilides and Valentinus, but which ought to be attributed\nto their followers, will go but little way as such proof (see\n\"Supernatural Religion,\" vol. ii, pp. 41 to 63).\n\nIt is pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the bushel of Tischendorf\nchaff. On page 98, and following pages, the erudite author applies\nhimself to get rid of the testimony of Papias, which was falsified and\nput forward by Paley as of great importance. Paley says the authority of\nPapias is complete; Tischendorf declares that Papias is in error. Paley\nsays Papias was a hearer of John, Tischendorf says he was not. We leave\nthe champions of the two great Christian evidence-mongers to settle the\nmatter as best they can. If, however, we are to accept Dr. Tischendorfs\ndeclaration that the testimony of Papias is worthless, we get rid of the\nchief link between Justin Martyr and the apostolic age. It pleases Dr.\nTischendorf to damage Papias, because that father is silent as to the\ngospel of John; but the Religious Tract Society must not forget that in\nthus clearing away the second-hand evidence of Papias, they have cut\naway their only pretence for saying that any of the Gospels are\nmentioned by name within 150 years of the date claimed for the birth of\nJesus. In referring to the lost work of Theophilus of Antioch, which Dr.\nTischendorf tells us was a kind of harmony of the Gospels, in which the\nfour narratives are moulded and fused into one, the learned Doctor\nforgets to tell us that Jerome, whom he quotes as giving some account of\n\nTheophilus, actually doubted whether the so-called commentary was really\nfrom the pen of that writer. Lardner says: \"Whether those commentaries\nwhich St. Jerome quotes were really composed by Theophilus may be\ndoubted, since they were unknown to Eusebius, and were observed by\nJerome to differ in style and expression from his other works. However,\nif they were not his, they were the work of some anonymous ancient.\" But\nif they were the work of an anonymous ancient after Eusebius, what\nbecomes of Dr. Tischendorf s \"as early as A.D. 170?\"\n\nEusebius, who refers to Theophilus, and who speaks of his using the\nApocalypse, would have certainly gladly quoted the Bishop of Antioch's\n\"Commentary on the Four Gospels,\" if it had existed in his day. Nor is\nit true that the references we have in Jerome to the work attributed to\nTheophilus, justify the description given by Dr. Tischendorf, or even\nthe phrase of Jerome, \"_qui quatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta\ncompingens._\" Theophilus seems, so far as it is possible to judge, to\nhave occupied himself not with a connected history of Jesus, or a\ncontinuous discourse as to his doctrines, but rather with mystical and\nallegorical elucidations of occasional passages, which ended, like many\npious commentaries on the Old or New Testament, in leaving the point\ndealt with a little less clear with the Theophillian commentary than\nwithout it. Dr. Tischendorf says that Theo-doret and Eusebius speak of\nTatian in the same way--that is, as though he had, like his Syrian\ncontemporary, composed a harmony of the four Gospels. This is also\ninaccurate. Eusebius talks of Tatianus \"having found a certain body and\ncollection of Gospels, I know not how,\" which collection Eusebius does\nnot appear even to have ever seen; and so far from the phrase in\nTheodoret justifying Dr. Tischendorfs explanation, it would appear from\nTheodoret that Tatian's Diatessaron was, in fact, a sort of spurious\ngospel, \"The Gospel of the Four\" differing materially from our four\nGospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Neither Irenaeus, Clement of\nAlexandria, or Jerome, who refer to other works of Tatian, make any\nmention of this. Dr. Tischendorf might have added that Diapente, or \"the\nGospel of the Five,\" has also been a title applied to this work of\nTatian.\n\nIn the third chapter of his essay, Dr. Tischendorf refers to apocryphal\nwritings \"which bear on their front the names of Apostles\" \"used by\nobscure writers to palm off\" their forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says that\nthese spurious books were composed \"partly to embellish\" scripture\nnarratives, and \"partly to support false doctrine;\" and he states that\nin early times, the Church was not so well able to distinguish true\ngospels from false ones, and that consequently some of the apocryphal\nwritings \"were given a place they did not deserve.\" This statement of\nthe inability of the Church to judge correctly, tells as much against\nthe whole, as against any one or more of the early Christian writings,\nand as it may be as fatal to the now received gospels as to those now\nrejected, it deserves the most careful consideration. According to Dr.\nTischendorf, Justin Martyr falls into the category of those of the\nChurch who were \"not so critical in distinguishing the true from the\nfalse;\" for Justin, says Tischendorf, treats the Gospel of St. James and\nthe Acts of Pilate, each as a fit source whence to derive materials for\nthe life of Jesus, and therefore must have regarded the Gospel of St.\nJames and the Acts of Pilate, as genuine and authentic writings; while\nDr. Tischendorf, wiser, and a greater critic than Justin, condemns the\nGospel of St. James as spurious, and calls the Acts of Pilate \"a pious\nfraud;\" but if Dr. Tischendorf be correct in his statement that \"Justin\nmade use of this Gospel\" and quotes the \"Acts of Pontius Pilate,\" then,\naccording to his own words, Justin did not know how to distinguish the\ntrue from the false, and the whole force of his evidence previously used\nby Dr. Tischendorf in aid of the four Gospels would have been seriously\ndiminished, even if it had been true, which it is not, that Justin\nMartyr had borne any testimony on the subject.\n\nSuch, then, are the weapons, say the Religious Tract Society, by their\nchampion, \"which we employ against unbelieving criticism.\" And what are\nthese weapons? We have shown in the preceding pages, the _suppressio\nveri_ and the _suggestio falsi_ are amongst the weapons used. The\nReligious Tract Society directors are parties to fabrication of\nevidence, and they permit a learned charlatan to forward the cause of\nChrist with craft and chicane. But even this is not enough; they need,\naccording to their pamphlet, \"a new weapon;\" they want \"to find out the\nvery words the Apostles used.\" True believers have been in a state of\ndelusion; they were credulous enough to fancy that the authorised\nversion of the Scriptures tolerably faithfully represented God's\nrevelation to humankind. But no, says Dr. Tischendorf, it has been so\nseriously modified in the copying and re-copying that it ought to be set\naside altogether, and a fresh text constructed. Glorious news this for\nthe Bible Society. Listen to it, Exeter Hall! Glad tidings to be issued\nby the Paternoster Row saints! After spending hundreds of thousands of\npounds in giving away Bibles to soldiers, in placing them in hotels and\nlodging-houses, and shipping them off to negroes and savages, it appears\nthat the wrong text has been sent through the world, the true version\nbeing all the time in a waste-paper heap at Mount Sinai, watched over by\nan \"invisible eye.\" But, adds Dr. Tischendorf, \"if you ask me whether\nany popular version contains the original text, my answer is Yes and No.\nI say Yes as far as concerns your soul's salvation.\" If these are enough\nfor the soul's salvation, why try to improve the matter? If we really\nneed the \"full and clear light\" of the Sinaitic Bible to show us \"what\nis the Word written by God,\" then most certainly our present Bible is\nnot believed by the Religious Tract Society to be the Word written by\nGod. The Christian advocates are in this dilemma: either the received\ntext is insufficient, or the proposed improvement is unnecessary. Dr.\nTischendorf says that \"The Gospels, like the only begotten of the\nFather, will endure as long as human nature itself,\" yet he says \"there\nis a great diversity among the texts,\" and that the Gospel in use\namongst the Ebionites and that used amongst the Nazarenes have been\n\"disfigured here and there with certain arbitrary changes.\" He admits,\nmoreover, that \"in early times, when the Church was not so critical in\ndistinguishing the true from the false,\" spurious Gospels obtained a\ncredit which they did not deserve. And while arguing for the enduring\ncharacter of the Gospel, he requests you to set aside the received text\naltogether, and to try to construct a new revelation by the aid of Dr.\nTischendorf s patent Sinaitic invention.\n\nWe congratulate the Religious Tract Society upon their manifesto, and on\nthe victory it secures them over German Rationalism and English\nInfidelity. The Society's translator, in his introductory remarks,\ndeclares that \"circumstantial evidence when complete, and when every\nlink in the chain has been thoroughly tested, is as strong as direct\ntestimony;\" and, adds the Society's penman, \"This is the kind of\nevidence which Dr. Tischendorf brings for the genuineness of our\nGospels.\" It would be difficult to imagine a more inaccurate description\nof Dr. Tischendorf s work. Do we find the circumstantial evidence\ncarefully tested in the Doctor's boasting and curious narrative of his\njourneys commenced on a pecuniary deficiency and culminating in much\ncash? Do we find it in Dr. Tischendorf s concealment for fifteen years\nof the place, watched over by an invisible eye, in which was hidden the\ngreatest biblical treasure in the world? Is the circumstantial evidence\nshown in the sneers at Renan? or is each link in the chain tested by the\nstrange jumbling together of names and conjectures in the first chapter?\nWhat tests are used in the cases of Valentinus and Basilides in the\nsecond chapter? How is the circumstantial testimony aided by the\nreferences in the third chapter to the Apocryphal Gospels? Is there a\npretence even of critical testing in the chapter devoted to the\napostolic fathers? All that Dr. Tisch-endorf has done is in effect to\ndeclare that our authorised version of the New Testament is so\nunreliable, that it ought to be got rid of altogether, and a new text\nconstructed. And this declaration is circulated by the Religious Tract\nSociety, which sends the sixpenny edition of the Gospel with one hand,\nand in the other the shilling Tischendorf pamphlet, declaring that many\npassages of the Religious Tract Society's New Testament have undergone\nsuch serious modifications of meaning as to leave us in painful\nuncertainty as to what was originally written.\n\nThe very latest contribution from orthodox sources to the study of the\nGospels, as contained in the authorised version, is to be found in the\nvery candid preface to the recently-issued revised version of the New\nTestament, where the ordinary Bible receives a condemnation of the most\nsweeping description. Here, on the high authority of the revisers, we\nare told that, with regard to the Greek text, the translators of the\nauthorised version had for their guides \"manuscripts of late date, few\nin number and used with little critical skill.\" The revisers add what\nFreethinkers have long maintained, and have been denounced from pulpits\nfor maintaining, viz., \"that the commonly received text needed thorough\nrevision,\" and, what is even more important, they candidly avow that \"it\nis but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a\nwork with even approximate completeness.\" So that not only \"God's Word\"\nhas admittedly for generations not been \"God's Word\" at all, but even\nnow, and with materials not formerly known, it has only been revised\nwith \"approximate completeness,\" whatever those two words may mean. If\nthey have any significance at all, they must convey the belief of the\nnew and at present final revisers of the Gospel, that, even after all\ntheir toil, they are not quite sure that god's revelation is quite\nexactly rendered into English. So far as the ordinary authorised version\nof the New Testament goes--and it is this, the law-recognised version\nwhich is still used in administering oaths--we are told that the old\ntranslators \"used considerable freedom,\" and \"studiously adopted a\nvariety of expressions which would now be deemed hardly consistent with\nthe requirements of faithful translation.\" This is a pleasant euphemism,\nbut a real and direct charge of dishonest translation by the authorised\ntranslators. The new revisers add, with sadness, that \"it cannot be\ndoubted that they (the translators of the authorised version) carried\nthis liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity in\nthe rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same\ncontext, is one of the blemishes of their work.\" These blemishes the new\nrevisers think were increased by the fact that the translation of the\nauthorised version of the New Testament was assigned to two separate\ncompanies, who never sat together, which \"was beyond doubt the cause of\nmany inconsistencies,\" and, although there was a final supervision, the\nnew revisers add, most mournfully: \"When it is remembered that the\nsupervision was completed in nine months, we may wonder that the\nincongruities which remain are not more numerous.\"\n\nNor are the revisers by any means free from doubt and misgiving on their\nown work. They had the \"laborious task\" of \"deciding between the rival\nclaims of various readings which might properly affect the translation,\"\nand, as they tell us, \"Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek New\nTestament, forms a special study of much intricacy and difficulty, and\neven now leaves room for considerable variety of opinion among competent\ncritics.\" Next they say: \"the frequent inconsistencies in the authorised\nversion have caused us much embarrassment,\" and that there are \"numerous\npassages in the authorised version in which... the studied variety\nadopted by the Translators of 1611 has produced a degree of\ninconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principle of\nfaithfulness.\" So little are the new revisers always certain as to what\ngod means that they provide \"alternative readings in difficult or\ndebateable passages,\" and say \"the notes of this last group are numerous\nand largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors.\"\nAnd with reference to the pronouns and other words in italics we are\ntold that \"some of these cases... are of singular intricacy, and make it\nimpossible to maintain rigid uniformity.\" The new revisers conclude by\ndeclaring that \"through our manifold experience of its abounding\ndifficulties we have felt more and more as we went onward that such a\nwork can never be accomplished by organised efforts of scholarship and\ncriticism unless assisted by divine help.\" Apparently the new revisers\nare conscious that they did not receive this divine help in their\nattempt at revision, for they go on: \"We know full well that defects\nmust have their place in a work so long and so arduous as this which has\nnow come to an end. Blemishes and imperfections there are in the noble\ntranslation which we have been called upon to revise; blemishes and\nimperfections will assuredly be found in our own revision... we cannot\nforget how often we have failed in expressing some finer shade of\nmeaning which we recognised in the original, how often idiom has stood\nin the way of a perfect rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve\na familiar form of words, or even a familiar cadence, has only added\nanother perplexity to those which have already beset us.\"\n\n\n\n\nMR. GLADSTONE IN REPLY TO COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY\n\n\nIN the early days of the _National Reformer_ there was some reason to\nbelieve that, despite his enormous work and his utterly differing views,\nMr. Gladstone was not unfrequently a reader of some of the papers\nappearing in its columns. Later there was on one occasion a very\nremarkable piece of evidence that, whilst considering as \"questionable\"\nthe literature issued from the publishing office of the late Mr. Austin\nHolyoake, the veteran statesman did not pass it without notice. I do not\nknow if Mr. Gladstone has, during the last dozen years or so, had time\nor inclination for similar acquaintance with the utterances of advanced\nFreethought in this country--though his critique on a recent novel gives\naffirmative probability--but it is clear that he watches heretical\nutterances across the Atlantic; for in the _North American Review_ for\nMay, Mr. Gladstone--intervening in a correspondence going on between the\nRev. Dr. Field and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll--takes up his pen against the\neloquent American. I have hesitated very much as to publicly noticing\nthe North American Review article, for my personal reverence for Mr.\nGladstone is very great. I know how very far from one another we are on\nquestions of religion, and believing that the religious side or bent of\nMr. Gladstone's mind is stronger than any other feeling influencing him,\nI can conceive that I may offend much in any criticism, however\nrespectfully worded. Yet I am sure that Mr. Gladstone's high position\nentitles all he says to most attentive audience, and my duty to those in\nthe Freethought ranks who trust me compels me that I should tender some\nwords of comment. I venture to hope that the view of duty Mr Gladstone\nhas felt incumbent on him may prevail on my side to prevent any\nappearance of impertinent interference.\n\nIt is not proposed to deal here with the points in controversy between\nDr. Field and Colonel Ingersoll, or with the ease as between Mr.\nGladstone and the Colonel. All that will be ventured on is a brief\ncomment, from my own standpoint, on some of the positions adopted by Mr.\nGladstone, writing as a Christian believer.\n\nEarly in the article, stating his own position, Mr. Gladstone says:\n\"Belief in divine guidance is not of necessity belief that such guidance\ncan never be frustrated by the laxity, the infirmity, the perversity of\nman alike in the domain of action and the domain of thought.\" The whole\neffect of this sentence is governed by the meaning attached by the\nwriter to the words \"divine guidance.\" If the meaning intended to be\nconveyed by the word \"divine\" includes the assumption of omnipotent\nomniscience for the person or influence described as divine, and if\n\"guidance\" means the intentional direction of the human by the divine to\na given end, then it is not easy to understand how this can be\nintelligently believed, and yet that the same believer shall at the same\ntime believe that laxity or infirmity on the part of the individual\nguided may \"frustrate\" the guidance, that is, may counteract it, nullify\nit, or overcome it. That mental infirmity in the individual may be\nirremediable by Deity is a proposition which challenges the assumed\nomniscient omnipotence. That fallible human perversity may be more\npowerful than omnipotent intent is a contradiction in terms. If the\naffirmer of divine influence regarded the \"divine\" person as creator,\nand the individuals guided as created results, then the infirmity, i.e.,\ninsufficient capacity of the created, must have been intentional on the\npart of an omniscient, and the \"guidance\" would be illusory, in that the\n\"divine\" must, even prior to creation, have planned and predesigned the\nfrustration of his own guiding effort by means of this infirmity.\nPerversity on the part of the created individual, whether originated\npurposely by the creator or developed in spite of the omnipotent guider,\nsuch perversity, sufficient in activity to frustrate the active intent\nof omnipotence, involves wholesale contradiction on the part of, or\nutter confusion in the mind of, the believer. According to Mr.\nGladstone, the \"divine\" may guide the individual to think x, intending\nthe individual to think x, but knowing that the individual cannot (from\ninfirmity) think x, or will not (from perversity) think x, and therefore\nthe divine purpose is frustrated: the \"divine,\" i.e., the omnipotent\nbeing, is not only unable or unwilling to cure the infirmity, or to\novercome the perversity, but is actually the cause of the fatal\ninfirmity or perversity. That Mr. Gladstone honestly believes this is\nmanifest, but I venture to deny that such honest belief can be accepted\nas the equivalent for accurate thought. It may be the equivalent for a\nstate of mind, which, existing amongst millions of human beings in\ndiverse races, is yet consistent with the wide prevalence of\nir-reconcileable faiths, and with faiths irreconcileable with fact.\nAlike in thought and action, Mr. Gladstone believes the divine guidance\nmay be frustrated by human perversity, and thus possibly explains to\nhimself why it is that the Christian Governments of Europe have, in this\nclose of the nineteenth century, literally millions of men constantly\nready for the work of killing those who belong to the common family of\n\"Our Father which art in heaven.\"\n\nTaking up the words of the questioning challenge by Colonel Ingersoll to\nDr. Field \"What think you of Jephthah?\" Mr. Gladstone writes: \"I am\naware of no reason why any believer in Christianity should not be free\nto canvass, regret, or condemn the act of Jephthah. So far as the\nnarration which details it is concerned, there is not a word of sanction\ngiven to it more than to the falsehood of Abraham in Egypt, or of Jacob\nand Rebecca in the matter of the hunting (Gen. xx, 1-8, and Gen. xxiii\n[this is a misprint for xxvii]); or to the dissembling of St. Peter in\nthe case of the Judaising converts (Gal. ii, 11); I am aware of no color\nof approval given to it elsewhere. But possibly the author of the reply\nmay have thought that he found such an approval in the famous eleventh\nchapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the apostle, handling his\nsubject with a discernment and care very different to those of the\nreply, writes thus (Heb. xi, 32): 'And what shall I say more? for the\ntime would fail me to tell of Gideon, of Barak, and of Samson, and of\nJephthah: of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets.' Jephthah,\nthen, is distinctly held up to us by a canonical writer as an object of\npraise. But of praise on what account? Why should the reply assume that\nit is on account of the sacrifice of his child?\"\n\nI submit that to condemn the voluntary human sacrifice by Jephthah to\nJehovah, it is necessary to condemn the Bible presentment. A believer in\nChristianity who condemned the act of Jephthah would in this necessarily\ncondemn also the devotion to the Lord of a human being and the carrying\nout the vow by actual human sacrifice. But Leviticus xxvii, 28 and 29,\nauthorises such a vow, and enacts the result in precise language.\nKalisch, writing on this (\"Leviticus,\" Part I, p. 385), says: \"The fact\nstands indisputable that human sacrifices offered to Jehovah were\npossible among the Hebrews long after the time of Moses, without meeting\ncheck or censure from the teachers or leaders of the nation.\"\n\nMr. Gladstone correctly enough maintains that the Bible gives no more\nsanction to the conduct of Jephthah \"than to the falsehood of Abraham in\nEgypt.\" I quite admit that this is accurately stated, but God frequently\ndescribed himself as the \"God of Abraham;\" Abraham is pictured as being\nin heaven; special promises were made to Abraham; and if these were not\nas sanctioning his conduct, they nevertheless were marks of approbation\nwithout blame of that conduct. In ordinary cases where reward is given\nit is not unnaturally associated with the narrated conduct of the person\nrewarded. Abraham and Jephthah stand on much the same footing on the\nquestion of readiness to offer human sacrifice, except that in\nJephthah's case the initiative is with him. In the case of Abraham, the\ninitiative is from the Lord.\n\nMr. Gladstone, again, accurately says that there is no more sanction\ngiven to the act of Jephthah than is given to the trick and deliberate\nfalsehood by which Jacob cheated blind Isaac out of the blessing\nintended for Esau. That is so; but, according to the Genesis narrative,\nGod practically endorsed the fraud when he not only declared himself the\nGod of Jacob, but by his prophet declared that he loved Jacob and hated\nEsau (Romans ix, 13). When the cheater is loved and the cheated hated,\nit is scarcely straining the text to associate sanction of the act with\nthe love expressed for the the conduct of the person rewarded.\n\nThe narration as to Jephthah is of a distinct bargain between Jephthah\nand the Lord, and a bargain made under spiritual influence, or, to use\nMr. Gladstone's words, under divine guidance. The text is explicit\n(Judges xi, 29, 30, 31):\n\n\"Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over\nGilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh\nof Gilead he passed over unto the chil-dren of Ammon. And Jephthah vowed\na vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the\nchildren of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever\ncometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace\nfrom the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer\nit up for a burnt offering.\"\n\nAfter this vow the Lord does deliver the children of Ammon into\nJephthah's hands, and Jephthah--who says: \"I have opened my mouth unto\nthe Lord, and I cannot go back\"--in return keeps his part of the\nagreement, \"and did with her according to his vow.\" And yet Mr.\nGladstone writes that there is no reason so far as he is aware, to\nprevent a Christian from condemning this act of Jephthah. No reason,\nexcept that the condemnation must include the condemning of the practice\nof such vows generally, though specially enacted (Leviticus xxvii, 28,\n29):\n\n\"Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord\nof all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his\npossession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy\nunto the Lord. None devoted which shall be devoted of men, shall be\nredeemed but shall surely be put to death\"--\n\nand must also involve the express condemnation of the particular bargain\nassented to and completed alike by Jephthah and by \"the Lord.\"\n\nWith the challenge as to Jephthah, Col. Ingersoll asked Dr. Field \"What\nof Abraham?\" and this, too, is taken up by Mr. Gladstone who says of\nAbraham: \"He is not commended because, being a father, he made all the\npreparations antecedent to plunging the knife into his son. He is\ncommended (as I read the text) because, having received a glorious\npromise, a promise that his wife should be the mother of nations, and\nthat kings should be born of her (Genesis xvii, 6), and that by his seed\nthe blessings of redemption should be conveyed to man, and the\nfulfilment of the promise being dependent solely upon the life of Isaac,\nhe was nevertheless willing that the chain of these promises should be\nbroken by the extinction of that life, because his faith assured him\nthat the Almighty would find the way to give effect to his own designs\"\n(Heb. xi, 16-19). But the text is surely clear on this. Abraham is\npraised because he offered up Isaac, that is, that he was ready and\nwilling to offer a human sacrifice to \"the Lord\" similar to that which\nwas actually offered by Jephthah. Jephthah's sacrifice was voluntary;\nAbraham's uncompleted sacrifice was undertaken in obedience to the\npressure of temptation by God.\n\nMr. Gladstone observes that \"the facts... are grave and startling,\" and\nhe might well write thus if he had before him any record of the case of\na man tried in the United States for the murder of his son. The man\nimagined and believed, as Abraham is stated to have imagined and\nbelieved, that he heard God command him to kill his son as a sacrifice;\nthe man obeyed what he believed to be the divine command. While Abraham\nonly \"took the knife to slay his son,\" the American actually killed his\nchild. On the trial the jury found that the man was insane; that the\nimagined divine command was delusion; that what the man claimed to be an\nact of faith in God was an act of human insanity. Mr. Gladstone says\nthat Abraham's faith \"may have been qualified by a reserve of hope that\nGod would interpose before the final act,\" that is, that the\ninterposition would come before he, like Jephthah, actually killed his\nchild as a human sacrifice to the Deity who tempted him. The Bible text\ngives no support to Mr. Gladstone's qualifying theory. Genesis xxii, 1,\n2, says:\n\n\"God did tempt Abraham.... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son\nIsaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer\nhim there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will\ntell thee of.\"\n\nWithout hesitation, Abraham, according to the narrative, takes his son\nto the place, binds him to the wood, and deliberately prepares to carry\nout the sacrifice. Abraham either deceives the men (verse 5) and\nmisleads his son (verses 7 and 8), or Abraham did not believe in the\nconsummation of the sacrifice, and in the latter case the faith for\nwhich he is praised would be no more than hypocritic pretence. Nay, the\ntext expressly represents God as affirming that Abraham was ready to\ncarry out the sacrifice of his son (verse 16):\n\n\"By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this\nthing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son.\"\n\nIf Abraham only offered to kill his son as a sacrifice with the mental\nqualification that the offer would not be accepted, and that the\nsacrifice would not be exacted, then the Lord must have been misled into\nthe swearing recited in the text.\n\nEvidently Mr. Gladstone, himself a humane man and loving father, is not\nquite at ease in dealing with this part of Abraham's history. He says\n(1) \"that the narrative does not supply us with a complete statement of\nparticulars;\" (2) that \"the command was addressed to Abraham under\nconditions essentially different from those which now determine for us\nthe limits of moral obligations;\" (3) \"that the estimate of human life\nat the time was different;\" (4)\n\nthat \"the position of the father in the family was different: its\nmembers were regarded as in some sense his property.\" I rejoin (1) that\nto read into the text vital words of explanation which are not\nspecifically expressed in the \"divine revelation\"--and to so read\nbecause without these words the text is incredible--is perilously near\ndownright infidelity. And that, given the incompleteness of Genesis, the\nadded explanation must vary with the intellect, training, and temper of\nthe expositor, e.g. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Spurgeon, or the man who killed\nhis child in America, would fill up each imagined hiatus in very diverse\nfashions. (2) Mr. Gladstone's argument can only be maintainable on the\nassumption that the limits of moral obligation were in the time of\nAbraham differently determined--for or by, \"the Lord\"--from such limits\ntoday, that is, that the \"divine guide\" is not immutable. (3) That to\nrender this argument permissible on the part of a believer in\nChristianity it must be assumed that \"the Lord\" then estimated the value\nof human life differently from the manner in which he now would estimate\nit, because--unless \"the Lord\" was simply deceiving Abraham in the\noriginal direction and the subsequent swearing--\"the Lord\" concurred in\nand approved the proposed sacrifice by Abraham; as he also afterwards\nconcurred in and approved the actual sacrifice by Jephthah. (4) [nvolves\nthe assumption that the morality of family relation is now admittedly\nhigher under modern civilisation than when specially regulated by\n\"divine guidance.\"\n\n3 \"Capital and Wages,\" p. 19.\n\n4 \"Perversion of Scotland,\" p. 197.\n\nMr. Gladstone grants that \"there is every reason to suppose that around\nAbraham in 'the land Moriah,' the practice of human sacrifice as an act\nof religion was in full vigor,\" and he does not fall into the error of\nordinary Biblical apologists in pretending that the practice of human\nsacrifice was confined to \"false \"religions.\n\nMr. Gladstone fairly states that the command received by Abraham to\noffer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice was not only \"obviously\ninconsistent with the promises which had preceded,\" but \"was also\ninconsistent with the morality acknowledged in later times.\" I submit\nthat this statement is really a condemnation by Mr. Gladstone of the\ndivine command, in that it is a declaration that such a command\nwould--in times later than Abraham, in fact, in our own times--be an\nimmoral command. Here there ought not to be any question raised of\nchanged conditions, for the command is from \"the Lord,\" that is, from\nthe assumed immutable, omniscient Omnipotent. Mr. Gladstone, it is true,\ncontends that \"though the law of moral action is the same everywhere and\nalways, it is variously applicable to the human being, as we know from\nexperience; and its first form is that of simple obedience to a superior\nwhom there is every ground to trust.\" As in the article Mr. Gladstone\nhas given no definition of what he means by morality, I have no right to\ngo beyond his statement. Following Bentham and Mill, I should personally\nmaintain the utilitarian definition of morality, i.e., \"that that action\nis moral which is for the greatest good of the greatest number with the\nleast injury to any.\" But this would not in any fashion fit in with Mr.\nGladstone's contention, which in the case of a Russian, would make the\nact moral which is of simple obedience to the Czar, even though that act\nhappened to be the knouting of a delicate woman; or in the case of a\nRoman Catholic would declare the act to be moral which was performed in\nsimple obedience to the Pope, even though it were the applying the fire\nto the faggots piled round Giordano Bruno; or in the case of an English\nsailor would make the act moral done in obedience to the commander of\nhis ship, even though it should be the placing a destructive torpedo in\ncontact with a crowded vessel of an enemy; or in the case of an Irish\nconstable, though the act should be the shooting, on the command of his\nsuperior, from the window of a Mitchelstown barrack, even though the\nresult was the murder of an unoffending old man.\n\n\n\n\nA FEW WORDS ON THE CHRISTIANS' CREED\n\n\nTO THE REV. J.G. PACKER, A.M, INCUMBERER OF ST. PETER'S, HACKNEY ROAD\n\nSIR,--Had the misfortunes which I owe to your officious interference\nbeen less than they are, and personal feeling left any place in my mind\nfor deliberation or for inquiry in selecting a proper person to whom to\ndedicate these few remarks, I should have found myself directed, by many\nconsiderations, to the person of the Incumberer of St. Peter's, Hackney\nRoad. A life spent in division from part of your flock, and in crushing\nthose whom you could not answer, may well entitle you to the respect of\nall true bigots. Hoping that you will be honoured as you deserve,\n\nI am, Reverend Sir,\n\nYours truly,\n\n  C. BRADLAUGH\n\nTHE Creed of the Christian is what I proceed to consider, and I shall\ntake for consideration the one which we have given us in the Communion\nService of the Church of England. It begins thus: \"I believe in one God,\nthe Father, Almighty.\" Here is a declaration of belief in the unity of\nGod. How far this declaration is carried out in the latter parts of the\ncreed, is a matter for further investigation; but we will now take the\nnext sentence: \"Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and\ninvisible.\" Here, in the two sentences, we have the declaration of\nbelief in a power that has created the universe. Now, the very term\n\"belief\" implies that the thing is not known; for when we have attained\nknowledge, we are beyond mere belief. As the believers are in doubt\nabout the existence of a creator, I will endeavor to investigate the\nprobability of there being such an existence. If you put any inquiries\nto a Christian as to the creation, he will tell you that God made matter\nout of nothing. If you ask him who or what God is, he will tell you that\nGod is quite incomprehensible. Failing to get any other information on\nthis point, you ask him, but how could something be produced from\nnothing? to which, if he is a pious man, he will reply, that, too, is\nincomprehensible; and also add, that it is one of those mysteries of\nreligion that we must not attempt to reason upon. Having satisfied\nourselves that the Christian can give us no information, beyond that\nwhich is contained in a book which he calls a revelation from God, we\nlook to this book to ascertain, if we can, something further relating to\nthis incomprehensibility. We, however, now find ourselves in a worse\nposition than we were before, for we are told in one text that God is\nall-powerful; in another text (Judges i, 19) we are told that he is not.\nIn one text we are told that God is unchangeable; and in another we are\ntold that God grieves and repeats (Gen. vi, 6). In another that he gets\nin a passion, and marches through the land in indignation, and thrashes\nthe heathen in his anger (Habakkuk iii, 12). I might fill a volume with\nthese beautiful specimens of the character of the God of the Christian.\nHowever, as the Bible quite supports God's character for\nincomprehensibility, I think we need not doubt that thus far the\nChristian is right. But, as this is not the sort of evidence that a\nreasonable man will be satisfied with, and as the burden of proof lies\nupon the man who declares or makes the assertion, I think all must come\nto the conclusion that the assertion, not being supported by evidence,\nmust, as a matter of necessity, fall to the ground.\n\nThe next passage runs thus: \"And in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only\nbegotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all the worlds.\" Here\nis the declaration of a belief (which, however little it will bear\nexamination, we will take for the present) in a being whom we should\ntake from the word Son to be a personage inferior to God the Father,\nespecially as in John (xiv, 28), Jesus is represented saying \"the Father\nis greater than I;\" but such is not the case, for the next words, \"God\nof God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God,\" show that the Christian\nmakes Jesus not only to be equal, but to be superior to God the Father,\nfor he tells us that Jesus is God of Gods, and very God of very God. Now\nif God the Father is incomprehensible, I can assure you that the God and\nvery God of God the Father appears to me to be doubly so. The belief\nthen proceeds, \"begotten, not made, being of one substance with the\nFather, by whom all things were made.\" This is a most important\ndeclaration, for it clearly proves that the Christian believes in a\nmaterial and substantial God, or rather material and substantial Gods,\nfor he tells us that God the Father and God the Son are both of the same\nsubstance. This belief in a material deity upsets the prior declaration\nof the creation or production of matter from nothing, for if the Gods or\nGod of the Christians are or is eternal, and as they, or he, are or is\nclearly material, so matter must be eternal, and could never have been\ncreated. The belief next proceeds, \"Who for us men and for our salvation\ncame own from heaven.\" This coming down and ascending up to heaven\nclearly proves that the Christian considers that the earth is a kind of\nflat surface with heaven above, and that God lives up in heaven, and\nthat he sometimes has come down to see us and gone up again after the\nvisit. But we are told that he came for our salvation. Now to be a\nsalvation there must be a fall. Of course there must, cries the exulting\nChristian; look to Genesis and see the account of the fall of Adam. We\ndo look to Genesis, and we find that somebody called Yeue Alehim (whom\nour translators make Lord God, but for what reason I am at a loss), has\nplaced Adam and Eve in a garden with a command not to eat certain fruit,\nand that this Lord God, to make his command stronger, backs it with a\nlie, for he tells Adam and Eve that in the day that they eat of it they\nshall surely die, which the sequel proves not to be true, as they did\nnot die, but one of them lived 930 years after he had broken the\ncommand. While Adam and Eve are in this garden a cunning serpent, whom\nthe Lord God also has made, tempts Eve, and they eat of the fruit of the\ntree, and their eyes are opened, and they gain a knowledge of good and\nevil. Now the Lord God seems to be very much like the bigoted parsons of\nthe present day, for when he finds out what Adam and Eve have done he\ngets in a passion and swears at them, and curses Adam and his wife and\nthe serpent; and not satisfied with this, he curses the land too, just\nas if the land had had some share in the crime.\n\nThis is a summary of the account of the Fall contained in the Bible.\nBecause Adam and Eve had been guilty of the horrible crime of eating of\nthe fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is they\nlearnt to think and reason for themselves, God Almighty found it\nnecessary to damn them; and depend upon it, reader, whoever you may be,\nthat when you are guilty of the crime of thinking, speaking, and acting\nfor yourself in religious matters, God's vicegerents on earth, the\nblack-coated, white-neckerchiefed, strait-haired, pious psalm-singing\ngentry, will do their best to crush you and damn you by every means in\ntheir power. They will calumniate you as they have done Thomas Paine and\nthe rest of those brave men who have been courageous enough to strive\nfor civil and religious liberty.\n\nBut I fear I am guilty of digression, and therefore I will take you back\nto the account of the Fall. Adam having been cursed, our pastors pretend\nthat it was necessary that there should be a redemption--for they have\nsuch a good opinion of their God, that although they tell us that\nwithout God's help we could not live and move, they think God would damn\nthe whole earth because one man [ate] an apple which, according to their\nown account, he could not have done if God had not permitted him;\ntherefore, to use the words of Richard Carlile, they give us the\nhorrible picture of \"a merciful God sacrificing a good and pure God to\nappease the vengeance of a jealous and revengeful God.\"\n\nI will now leave this to the consideration of the reader, and take the\nnext passage, which runs thus: \"And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of\nthe Virgin Mary, and was made man.\" I can scarcely imagine that any of\nthe Christians ever give this belief a thought, as, parrot-like, they\nrepeat it after their leader in the pulpit, for if they did think they\nmust be aware that they are uttering the most ridiculous and absurd\nstatements respecting their deity. The doctrine of the incarnation,\nhowever, is common to the Hindoos; and as their religion is much older\nthan Christianity, I suppose they will admit that the Hindoos did not\nderive their doctrine from the Christian, and also that it seems\nextremely probable that the Christians derived their doctrine of the\nincarnation from the Hindoos. This would go very far towards identifying\nChristianity with Paganism; and therefore the devout Christian will\nshudder at the thought, and again tell you that is a mystery that must\nnot be inquired into. But the absurdities contained in the idea of an\nomnipotent and infinite God becoming a weak and finite man, must, I\nthink, be apparent to all.\n\nThe creed then reads: \"And was crucified, also, for us, under Pontius\nPilate. He suffered, and was buried.\" The idea of a Very God of Very God\n_suffering_ and being buried! \"And the third day he rose again according\nto the scriptures.\" Now, unless there were other scriptures besides\nthose which we possess, Jesus did not rise according to the scriptures;\nfor the scriptures say, that as Jonah was three days and three nights in\nthe belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth. But Jesus was not three days and three\nnights in the heart of the earth, for he was crucified in the course of\nFriday, and was out of the grave before dawn on Sunday--being only one\nclear day and two nights. So much for being according to the scriptures.\n\nIt then proceeds: \"And ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right\nhand of the Father.\" We have been told that there is only one step from\nthe sublime to the ridiculous, and I think that this fully proves the\ntruth of the observation, for one moment we are told of an infinite God,\nand the next of two infinite Gods, sitting beside each other in a finite\nplace called heaven. But this is not the whole of the absurdity; for the\nidea of ascension into heaven proves what I have before noticed with\nregard to the absurd ideas of heaven and earth contained in this creed.\n\nThe creed proceeds: \"And he shall come again with glory to judge both\nthe quick and the dead: whose kingdom shall have no end.\" This involves\nthe belief of the existence in a future state, and, as it is impossible\nto prove a negative to the question, I shall put the following\ninterrogatories for the believer's consideration. In what state do you\nexpect man to exist with a knowledge of his identity after death? He\ncannot exist in a material state, for the matter of which he was\ncomposed has been dispersed, and now forms other bodies, and thus the\norganisation is totally destroyed. You cannot tell me that the atoms of\nwhich that man was composed will reunite, because that would presuppose\nthe existence of a power possessing the capability of the creation of\nmatter in the same state with the same knowledge of personal identity;\nbesides which, the matter of which Alexander the Great was composed may\nnow be in your body, and thus either you or poor Alexander would have to\ngo on short commons at the day of judgment. And with regard to anything\nthat may be said as to our existence in an immaterial state, I only ask\nthe believer to produce some proof of it, for as yet we have no proof,\nand therefore have nothing to answer.\n\nThe creed proceeds: \"And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver\nof Life: who proceedeth from the Father and Son.\" On this declaration I\nhave not much to say, except to point out the absurdity of it; for a\ndissertation on the term Holy Ghost would be too long for my pages. If\nGod the Father and God the Son are living beings, then God the Holy\nGhost is not the Lord and Giver of Life; for he proceeds from them, and\nthey were before him. But if God the Holy Ghost is the Lord and Giver of\nLife, then, till he came into existence, God Almighty and his Son must\nhave been without life. More than this, Jesus is said to be the son of\nthe Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost; now, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from\nJesus first, it seems rather strange that Jesus should have proceeded\nfrom the Holy Ghost afterwards. The \"Ecce Homo\" suggests that the\n_aggelos_, or messenger who represented the Holy Ghost, might have been\na _young man_.\n\nBut to return to our subject. It then proceeds: \"Who, with the Father\nand the Son together, is worshipped and glorified: who spake by the\nprophets.\" Now it happens that there are a number of Lords who spake by\nthe prophets--such as _Yeue or Yehovah, Alehim, El Sheddi_, and\nothers--but not one Holy Ghost: so that the Bible gives the lie to the\nbelief, unless the Holy Ghost was the lying spirit in the case of Ahab,\nand I am afraid that that would not tell much to the credit of the Holy\n(or unholy) Ghost.\n\n\"And I believe in one catholic and apostolic church.\" Setting aside the\nword apostolic, this is the only good part in the belief; for depend\nupon it readers, that till there is an universality of mind and action\nthroughout the world in one direction, we never shall have true\nhappiness. Therefore I praise the belief in a catholic or universal\nchurch or community; but the objectionable word apostolic pulls me down\nfrom the Utopia to which I had begun to soar, for that word spoils all.\nWith the word apostle are strangely mingled together some ideas of\nPeter, the Pope, the Inquisition, thumbscrews, racks, stakes, and other\nadjuncts to an apostolic church.\n\n\"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins.\" Only think,\nreaders, the church set at loggerheads, and nearly L100,000 spent on the\nlast nine words. A bishop, with all the courage imaginable, speaking\nwhat the _Times_ tells him may cost him his mitre, and then\nexcommunicating the whole who disagree with him, the _Times_ of course\nincluded, on account of these words! I think after this we had better\nread the passage again. What is baptism? Answer: Saying long prayers\nover a baby in long clothes, till you wake it, and then sprinkling water\non it till you make it cry! What is remission of sins? Answer: Don't\nknow. Now I believe the grand question in dispute is whether the grace\ncomes before the baptism or at it, or after it, or whether it comes at\nall; and to settle this question they have employed themselves in\nworrying one another with threats, protests, and prohibitions, to the\nbenefit of the lawyers and us poor inquirers. I say our benefit, too,\nfor we are told that when rogues fall out honest men get their own. What\nabsurdity is contained in the idea that the baptising of a child with\nwater saved it from being damned for sins that it never committed! or,\nhow still more absurd is the idea that the child would be damned if it\nwere not baptised at all; yet this doctrine is taught and inculcated by\nthe Creed of the Church of England. The creed proceeds: \"I look for the\nresurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.\" Together\nwith this resurrection are associated the ideas that we shall be brought\nbefore the bar of God and give an account of our deeds, and that the bad\nshall be sent to hell and the good to heaven. Now we are told that hell\nis a lake of brimstone and fire; if that is the case, I deny that there\ncan be eternal punishment, for science proves that there is not enough\nbrimstone in any finite space to burn one man for ever, let alone\nseveral millions: and with regard to heaven, if I am to go there I hope\nit will not be near the planet Uranus, for I should feel too cold; or\nnear the sun, for then I should feel too hot, and should not be very\nhappy. However, take it at the worst, we freethinkers should be better\noff than the believer, for bad as the believer makes his God, he surely\ncould never be unjust enough to send me to hell for speaking what I\nbelieved to be the truth.\n\nTaking the Creed as a whole, it is one of the most ridiculous\ndeclarations of faith imaginable, for the believer declares a belief in\nFather, Son, and Holy Ghost. And how are these pictured in Scripture?\n\"The Father is somewhere in heaven, the Son sits at his right hand, and\nthe Holy Ghost flies about in a bodily shape like a dove.\" What a\ncurious picture to present to any reasonable man--a Father begets a Son\nfrom nothing, and a dove proceeds from the two of them. I shall say no\nmore on this disgusting part of Christianity--disgusting because so many\nbelieve all that is told them by a man who possesses the same powers of\ncomprehension as themselves, and who has a position to maintain in the\nworld--I mean the priest. My blood runs cold to think of the mischief\nthat has been done by those men called priests; they are the bane of\nsociety, for they rule the mass of society _vi et armis_ and they rule\nit wrongfully; they do not give it a chance of obtaining a mouthful of\nintellectual food without steeping it in the poison of their\nsuperstitious dogmas, and till we take the antidote of free discussion\nwe shall never be free. But alas for reform! there are strong bulwarks\nof faith and prejudice to be attacked and pulled down before that\nantidote can fully counteract the debasing effects of superstition on\nthe mind and action of man.\n\nHowever, Christian, before concluding, I will give you a summary of your\nmost absurd Creed. You believe in God the Father who is eternal, and in\nGod the Son who is eternal too. You believe that the Holy Ghost is the\nfather of Jesus, and that Jesus is the son of God the Father. You\nbelieve that the Holy Ghost is a _material spirit_, and that he has made\nhimself manifest in two forms, namely, a dove or pigeon, and a cloven\ntongue of fire (the latter would be no bad emblem, were he the identical\nlying spirit). You believe that a finite woman, who was a virgin, gave\nbirth to an infinite God, and yet that that God was a man. You believe\nthat Jesus went down into hell and stopped on his visit three days; but,\nChristian, if it were true, do you think that the devil would have been\nunwise enough to let his bitterest enemy out after he had got him so\nnicely in his power? You believe that the Holy Ghost spoke by the\nprophets. To do that he must have had foreknowledge, and we must have\nbeen predestined to do certain acts; and yet you believe that we are\nfree, and shall be punished or rewarded according to our actions and\nfaith. You believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, are three\nseparate persons, and yet that they are one.\n\nYou who are Papists believe that there are three Gods in one and one in\nthree, and that yours is the true Church, and that the Pope is the head\nof the church, and the representative of God on earth. You who are\nChurchmen hold the same trinity, but make Victoria, by the grace of God,\nqueen defender of the faith, nominal Pope of your church, and the\nArchbishops of Canterbury and York the actual popes. You who are\nWesleyan elect John Wesley to the papal dignity, and so on with the\nrest.\n\nI hope that all who profess the creed will look around and see the\npresent theological panic. The Wesleyans are divided by the \"Fly Sheets\"\ninto two parties, and are attacking one another most vigorously. The\nChurch of England is divided by Goreham, and the bishops are\nexcommunicating one another. And lastly, the Pope is at a discount in\nthe very seat of his empire, and Free-thought is slowly but steadily\nincreasing.\n\nTo those readers who approve of this, I beg leave to ask their\nassistance in the work of progress by their acting as well as talking\namong their fellow-men. To those who disapprove, I say, \"Answer it.\"\n\n\n\n\n                                  ----","title":"Theological Essays","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":110712}