I. The Tercentenary of the English Bible
|JUST at present there is a revival of interest in the bible. The three
hundredth anniversary of the King James' version of the Holy Bible was
recently celebrated in the great cities of Christendom. All the pulpits
have been heard from in praise of the book. It will be noticed, however,
that almost every one of the preachers confined himself to glittering
generalities about the bible. Judging by the reports of their sermons,
there was not a single speaker who attempted a careful and instructive
study of the book--its origin, its growth, or the character of its
contents. Although the book was eloquently praised as the best ever
written, no effort was made to point out wherein, or in what respect,
the bible deserved the honor and the worship demanded in its behalf. The
preachers spoke of the bible with the same confidence, or conceit, that
the Moslem displays when he is praising his bible. One of the well-known
speakers, W. J. Bryan, challenged the world, at the bible-meeting in
Chicago, to produce a better book than the Jewish-Christian scriptures.
The celebration of the three hundredth anniversary of the publication
of the authorized version presented also an opportunity to many of the
defenders of the bible to praise the translators of the bible under
King James of England. An idea of the moral and intellectual standing
of these divines may be had by reading the preface which is attached to
every bible printed in Great Britain. In this, they dedicate the work to
the king, whom they exalt as a paragon of virtue. James I.
was, by universal consent, one of the meanest and most worthless
pedants that ever wore a crown. Yet, even as the divines who formulated
the Nicene creed addressed to Constantine, who had murdered the members
of his own household in cold blood, the words, "You have established the
faith, exterminated the heretics. That the king of heaven may preserve
the king of earth is the prayer of the church and clergy," the English
authors of the authorized version looked upon James, the meanest of the
Stuarts, as the vicar of God on earth, and presented him the following
address:
_To the Most High and Mighty Prince James, by the grace of God, King
of Great Britain, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, the
translators of the Bible wish Grace, Mercy and Peace, through Jesus
Christ our Lord.
Great and manifold were the blessings, most dread Sovereign, which
Almighty God, the Father of all mercies, bestowed upon us, the people
of England, when first he sent Your Majesty's Royal Person to rule and
reign over us. For whereas it was the expectation of many, who wished
not well unto our Sion, that upon the setting of that bright Occidental
Star, Queen Elizabeth of most happy memory, some thick and palpable
clouds of darkness would so have overshadowed this Land that men should
have been in doubt which way they were to walk; and that it should
hardly be known who was to direct the unsettled State; the appearance
of Your Majesty, as of the Sun of strength, instantly dispelled those
supposed and surmised mists and gave unto all that were well affected
exceeding cause of comfort; especially when we beheld the Government
established in Your Highness, and Your hopeful Seed, by an undoubted
Title, and this also accompanied with peace and tranquillity at home and
abroad._
And much more, in this same strain, concluding with these words:
_The Lord of heaven and earth bless Your Majesty with many and happy
days, that, as his heavenly hand hath enriched Your Highness with many
singular and extraordinary graces, so You may be the wonder of the world
in this latter age for happiness and true felicity, to the honour of
that great God and the good of his Church, through Jesus Christ, our
Lord and only Saviour._
What made these "divines" so proud of James? He was their king. What
makes the "divines" of to-day praise the bible so effusively? It is
their bible. We regret to say that the "divines" of to-day no more speak
the truth about the bible than the "divines" of three hundred years ago
spoke the truth about King James.
Some Lay Defenders of the Bible--Bryan's Challenge
|ONE of the speakers at the tercentenary celebration was William
Jennings Bryan. Though not a "divine" as yet, he may become one,
according to reports, in the near future. Bryan was invited to deliver
the principal address at a mass meeting of the Christian churches of
Chicago (the Catholic church not included), in Orchestra Hall. In this
address, the oft-time presidential candidate openly challenged the
critics of his bible and of its divine origin "to produce a book equal
in wisdom and teachings to the volume which has stood the test of
centuries."
After I made sure that Mr. Bryan had really made the challenge, as will
appear by the quotations from his paper, _The Commoner_, which will be
given later, a telegram was addressed to him, signed by myself, in which
I accepted his challenge and invited him to state the terms on which
he would join me in the discussion of this timely and most important
subject, at the Auditorium, which seats six thousand people. Receiving
no reply, a telegram was forwarded to the proprietor of the Lincoln
_Star_--Lincoln being the home town of Mr. Bryan--requesting the
publisher to please interview Mr. Bryan about this matter. To the
courtesy of this gentleman I am indebted for the following message from
Lincoln:
_Charles Bryan has forwarded letter to W. J. Bryan, who returns here
June 3. Will hand Mr. Bryan your telegram when he reaches Lincoln._
The "Charles Bryan" in the dispatch is, I am told, the secretary, as
well as the brother, of William Jennings Bryan. He says he has forwarded
letter, ostensibly about my telegram, to W. J. Bryan. Why did he not
send him the telegram, itself? If his letter merely informed Bryan that
there was a telegram for him from Chicago, without either enclosing the
same in his letter, or telling him of its contents, Mr. Bryan had good
reason to discharge such a secretary. But if he enclosed the telegram,
or, which is more likely, informed Mr. Bryan of its import, why does
he say that he will hand the telegram to Bryan "when the latter reaches
Lincoln"? Why keep a telegram a whole month before giving it to the
person to whom it is addressed? But if his letter had already advised
Bryan of my acceptance of his challenge, and my offer to let him dictate
his own terms, why pretend that the telegram will remain sealed until
Mr. Bryan returns to Lincoln on the third of June?
Evidently, all that the two Bryans wanted was to postpone the day of
reckoning. The third day of June arrived, but no answer came from Bryan.
Another appeal was made to the Lincoln _Star_:
_If no trouble, would you mind finding if Bryan is at home; and what he
expects to do about Mangasarian's acceptance of his challenge._
And as promptly as in the former instance, the answer came:
_Bryan says he will take no action re challenge._
But it was Mr. Bryan who made the challenge in the first place. His
challenge was not only made in public, but it is now in print, as the
following from the report of his Orchestra Hall address, as it appeared
in Bryan's own paper, fully shows:
_The Christian world has confidence in the bible; it presents the book
as the Word of God, but the attacks made upon it by its enemies continue
in spite of the growth of the bible's influence. The Christian world
by its attitude presents a challenge to the opposition, and this is an
opportune moment to emphasize the challenge._
How does the distinguished Nebraskan get over these words? If "_The
Christian world... presents a challenge to the opposition, and this is
an opportune moment to emphasize the challenge_," why did not Mr. Bryan
promptly and gladly accept an offer which placed one of the greatest
halls in the country at his disposal, without any expense whatever to
himself or to the Christian world? To say the least, it is significant
that a successful orator and popular lecturer like Mr. Bryan, with his
implicit confidence in the bible as the best book in all the world,
would even hesitate, much less decline, to accept so great an
opportunity as was placed at his disposal. Moreover, if he were
not going to make "the action suit the word," why did he speak of a
challenge at all? Was this only an oratorical display on his part? Was
it mere bravado? If he were talking on the same subject again, would he
repeat his challenge to the "opposition"? If our little episode with
him will prevent him from ever using the word "challenge" again in his
religious speeches, we shall consider our services well rewarded.
But the real reason for Bryan's collapse as a bible champion will
be seen in perusing the following comments on his address at the
tercentenary celebration.
Bryan's Defense of the Bible
|AS reported in _The Commoner_ * Bryan began his address by saying that
the critics of the bible _... have disputed the facts which it sets
forth and ridiculed the prophesies which it recites; they have rejected
the account which it gives of the creation and scoffed at the miracles
which it records. They have denied the existence of the God of the Bible
and have sought to reduce the Savior to the stature of a man. They have
been as bold as the prophets of Baal in defying the Living God and in
heaping contempt upon the Written Word. Why not challenge the atheists
and the materialists to put their doctrines to the test? When Elijah was
confronted by a group of scorners who mocked at the Lord whom he
worshiped, he invited them to match the power of their God against the
power of his, and he was willing to concede superiority to the one who
would answer with fire. When the challenge was accepted he built an
altar, prepared a sacrifice, and then, to leave no room for doubt, he
poured water upon the wood and the sacrifice--poured until the water
filled the trenches round about. So firm was his trust that he even
taunted his adversaries with their failure while his proofs were yet to
be presented. The prophets of Baal, be it said to their credit, had
enough confidence in their God to agree to the test, and their
disappointment was real when he failed them--they gashed themselves with
knives when their entreaties were unanswered.
Why not a bible test?_
* May 12, 1911.
Mr. Bryan does not tell the rest of the story, although as much of it as
he gives is bad enough.
Elijah had no desire to convert his rivals to the true faith; he wanted
to kill every one of them, which he did:
_And Elijah said unto them, Take the prophets of Baal; let not one of
them escape.... And Elijah brought them down to the brook Kishon, and
slew them there._ *
* There were 450 of them.
This is the same Elijah who prayed for a drought, and for the space
of three years not a drop of rain fell upon the land. If there is an
educated man who can admire such a prayer, or the Being who answered it,
or who can believe that for three years, men, women, children, plants
and animals went thirsty--he is really beyond hope.
Mr. Bryan did not accept our invitation, because, I believe, he felt
that he would not have the courage to repeat this story of Elijah
before any other kind of an audience than one composed strictly of such
Christian or Jewish believers who dare not think straight.
What, for instance, would Bryan have answered if he were asked why
Elijah did not leave to the deity the killing of the four hundred and
fifty priests of an alien faith? If God could send down fire from
heaven to burn up the bullock, he could just as easily send down fire
to destroy the whole priesthood of Baal--as he sent down fire to destroy
Sodom and Gomorrah. But Elijah executed his critics himself; he did not
believe, evidently, that his God could get rid of them
without his help. In this he was more infidel than the priests he
killed. Murder was Elijah's intent from the first. In the history of
religious persecution was there ever a priest who believed enough in God
to leave to him the burning, or the quartering of heretics alive? How
much nobler was the example of the Roman emperor who refused to give
his sanction to religious persecution on the ground that the gods could
avenge their own wrongs.*
* Deorum injurias deis curae.
And does Bryan really believe that, once upon a time, the only way the
Deity could hold his own was by giving pyrotechnic exhibitions, which
ended in wholesale bloodshed? Is that the kind of a test Bryan desires?
The fact that there are even more unbelievers to-day than in Elijah's
time is a proof that the "fire and blood" test is a failure. It is
Reason that questions the bible, Mr. Bryan! And if the bible can not
conquer Reason, all the murders, the burnings and the hells of theology,
here or hereafter, are worse than a waste. Can'st thou conquer Reason?
But again, Bryan declines a meeting with Rationalists, because he is not
sure that the God who answered Elijah by fire will do the same for him.
If he were, he would not have hesitated for a moment. He would have had
an altar built on the platform and invoked the fire which would have
come down as soon as Bryan gave the word--injuring no one except the
unbelievers. But his faith was not strong enough for that. He is a good
enough Christian to believe that, once upon a time, that very thing
happened, but not a good enough Christian to believe that it will happen
a second time. The church has only _old_ miracles to boast of.
If I were in Mr. Bryan's place, I admit, I would have declined an
invitation to defend the bible before an audience of inquirers, just
as he has done. The mistake he made was his _challenge_ "to the
opposition," as he expresses it, and not his refusal to appear as
counsel for the bible before a critical audience. He did the only
consistent thing under the circumstances when he told the representative
of the press that he will not consider our invitation. Had he been
equally thoughtful in his Orchestra Hall address he would not have even
admitted that there are some people who do not believe in the inspired
bible--much less have challenged them.
A good Christian must never undertake to defend his bible against
criticism; the moment he attempts this he takes the whole question out
of God's hands. Who are _you_ that you should undertake to defend the
Word of God? And what makes you think that God's Word needs a defense?
No better proof could be asked for to show that both Bryan and his
hearers had lost the faith of Elijah, and were struggling in the slough
of doubt, than his elaborate attempt to defend the bible and his mock
challenge to its critics. The difference between Bryan _defending_ an
infallible book, and the critics of the same book, is not one of kind,
but one of degree. Bryan would not have undertaken to defend the bible
did he not think a defense was necessary, and to think that God's book
needs to be defended is a criticism against the book. The Nebraska
champion of the bible, then, has already entered the first stages of the
doubt which, in all logical minds, culminates in a denial of its divine
origin. No book which has to be defended can be divine.
The man who defends a _divine_ book and the man who attacks it are both
doubters.
Mr. Bryan might reply that, had he been a doubter, he would never have
challenged "the opposition," as he did in his tercentenary address. As
already stated, it is true that he made the challenge, and repeated
it many times during the course of his speech. It is equally true that
there is an air of confidence in Mr. Bryan's challenge, which must have
greatly impressed his audience. "Let them produce," he demanded, "a
better bible than ours, if they can."
_Let them collect the best of their school to be found among the
graduates of universities--as many as they please and from every land.
Let the members of this selected group travel where they will, consult
such libraries as they please, and employ every modern means of
swift communication. Let them glean in the fields of geology, botany,
astronomy, biology and zoology, and then roam at will wherever science
has opened a way; let them take advantage of all the progress in art and
in literature, in oratory and in history--let them use to the full every
instrumentality that is employed in modern civilization; and when they
have exhausted every source, let them embody the results of their best
intelligence in a book and offer it to the world as a substitute for
this bible of ours. Have they the confidence that the prophets of Baal
had in their God? Will they try? If not, what excuse will they give? Has
man fallen from his high estate, so that we can not rightfully expect as
much of him now as nineteen centuries ago? Or does the bible come to us
from a source that is higher than man--which?_
Any one listening to this flourish of trumpets would be led to think
that Mr. Bryan has already met and routed the enemy, and is now
celebrating his victory, instead of having yet to hear from the other
side. Encouraged by the silence of his audience, the speaker grows
bolder:
_But our case is even stronger. The opponents of the bible can not take
refuge in the plea that man is retrograding. They loudly proclaim that
man has grown and that he is growing still. They boast of a world-wide
advance and their claim is founded upon fact._
And Mr. Bryan expresses surprise that, with all this progress, the world
is unable "to produce a better book to-day than man, unaided, could have
produced in any previous age."
Referring once more to "the opposition," he says:
_The fact that they have tried, time and time again, only to fail
each time more hopelessly, explains why they will not--why they can
not--accept the challenge thrown down by the Christian world to produce
a book worthy to take the bible's place._
Growing bolder and bolder, in the absence of "the enemy," and feeling
confident that should "the enemy" be heard from, he could take refuge
in a dignified silence, Mr. Bryan continues, like Don Quixote, to fight
invisible foes:
_They (the agnostics) have prayed to their God to answer with
fire--prayed to inanimate matter, with an earnestness that is pathetic;
they have employed in the worship of blind force a faith greater than
religion requires, but their Almighty is asleep._
Had Mr. Bryan's "Almighty" been awake there would have been no need of
defenders of the bible. If the agnostics without divine aid, or with
only a "sleepy" God to help them, as Bryan avers, have done no more than
to compel the believers to put up a defense for their Word of God, they
have demonstrated what man, unaided by ghostly powers, can do. And it
is mere chatter to speak of agnostics as praying "to their God to answer
with fire," etc. Agnostics will pray for fire only when they lose faith
in Reason.
And is it to be inferred from the above sentence of Bryan, that his God
answers by fire? We say again, if this champion of an obsolete theology,
a theology which is being deserted by the Christian scholars themselves,
is in earnest, if he really believes all he says, if he dares to put his
faith to such a test as Elijah imposed upon his, or if he is prepared to
prove to an intelligent audience that the science, the history, and the
ethics of the bible can stand all the strain that Reason and Conscience
may put upon them--why did he run under cover as soon as he heard the
first sound of the Rationalist's approach? Mr. Bryan speaks with an air
of confidence, as the extracts from his speech show, but no battles are
won by--_air_.
In his lecture on "The Prince of Peace," Mr. Bryan takes the position
that to doubt or to question the doctrines of the churches is something
to be ashamed of. To show the difference in mentality between William
Jennings Bryan and the great Thomas Jefferson, one has only to compare
the daring and independence of the latter with the theological timidity
of the former.
From Bryan's "Prince of Peace":
_My purpose in delivering this lecture I will frankly avow. After my
first political defeat, I deliberately refrained from talking
religion in public, so as to avoid the charge of using religion as a
stepping-stone to further my personal ambitions. After my second defeat
the possibility of another nomination appeared so remote that I could
not let it weigh against the duty that I felt impelling me to address
the young men whom I saw refusing to attach themselves to a church. My
hope is that I may shame some young men out of their conceit that it is
smart to be skeptical._
From Jefferson's works, Vol. II, 2171:
_Fix Reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact,
every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God;
because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason than
of blindfolded fear.... Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any
fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God,
you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you
feel in the exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for
you._
The Presbyterian Bryan is ashamed of Reason; the Rationalist Jefferson
is prouder of his Reason than an emperor of his crown.
Had Mr. Bryan been reading Cicero instead of Elijah; had his culture
been European instead of Asiatic, he would never have quoted the murder
of four hundred and fifty men by one of the bible prophets as a proof
of the truth of his religion. "There are two ways of ending a dispute,"
wrote Cicero,--"discussion and force. The latter manner is simply that
of brute beasts, the former is proper to beings gifted with reason."
We leave it to Mr. Bryan to read between the lines.
II. Roosevelt on the Bible
|WILLIAM JENNINGS BRYAN was not the only politician, or publicist, who
contributed to the tercentenary celebration of the bible. Writing in the
_Outlook_, Theodore Roosevelt, to his own satisfaction, at least, meets
the opponents of the inspiration of the bible, and briefly disposes
of them. "Occasional critics," he writes, "taking sections of the Old
Testament, are able to point out that the teachings therein are not in
accordance with our own convictions and views of morality." Is it only
"occasional" critics who express disapproval of the Jewish-Christian
scriptures? And suppose it true that only "occasional" critics call
attention to the harm which the bible does by its immoral and impossible
teachings: Does that fact relieve the defenders of the bible from the
obligation to answer their criticisms? The important question is not,
who makes the criticism; but, is the criticism just?
"The Old Testament," continues Mr. Roosevelt, "did not carry Israel
as far as the New Testament has carried us; but it advanced Israel
far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached." This is
practically a plea of guilty. Why was not the Old Testament as good
as the New is supposed to be? Was it not equally divine? If the Old
Testament was meant to prepare the Jews to accept the New Testament,
they have not accepted it yet. But is it true that "the Old Testament
carried Israel far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then
reached"?
It is now nearly two thousand years since the New Testament began
to "carry us," and where have we reached? In how many things have we
advanced beyond the Greeks and the Romans, for instance? Only yesterday
the black man carried chains in our land, and throughout Christendom
white slavery of a more degrading type than ever known before is still
with us. Political corruption of a character which Mr. Roosevelt himself
has pronounced the most deep-seated and chronic is eating away the
vital parts of the American nation, while the hunger, the misery and the
squalor in the slums of our great cities, side by side with the waste
of wealth and the worship of show, prove daily the complete failure of
Christianity as a regenerating force. Whatever of hope there is to-day
in the human heart for a better future on earth, and whatever signs
there may be of a realization of justice and happiness for all men,
here and now, we are indebted for them, not to the New Testament, but
to modern thought, which is heresy from the point of view of the New, as
well as the Old, Testament.
It is the passing of the bible that has opened the way for real and
radical reforms. It is the failure of the inspired teachers to fulfill
their promises that has at last induced man to step to the front and
assume full control of the world's destinies. Man no longer prays to
the gods; he works. When the bible was supreme in Europe, was the world
better? Would Mr. Roosevelt return to the Middle Ages? Will he go back
to the times of Knox, Wesley, Calvin and the New England clergy, or to
the times when, by the authority of the bible which then ruled without
a rival, in court and church, in the home and the school, men and
women were bought and sold like animals, or burned alive as witches, or
tortured to death in a thousand dungeons for daring to think? When the
bible was supreme in Europe there was neither science nor commerce. When
the bible was supreme, tyrant and dissolute kings ruled by the "grace
of God," and priests persecuted the thinker in every capital of the
Christian world. It is the emancipation of thought, and not the New
Testament, that has conquered for us every blessing we enjoy. Not until
the Renaissance, that is to say, not until Europe deserted its Semitic
or Asiatic teachers for those of Hellas and Rome, did modern nations
begin to wax strong in mind and body. The New Testament really carried
us to the times of the Old Testament. It was the Renaissance of Greek
thought and art that changed the "thorns and thistles" of theology into
the golden fruit of science.
But what about the claim that "the Old Testament advanced Israel far
beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached." I wish Mr.
Roosevelt would read these lines as carefully as I have read his, which,
if he does, I feel confident he will admit that he made the above
statement without taking the pains to look up the evidence. What answer
would the ex-president of the United States make if he were asked to
prove his claim that the Old Testament carried the Jews to a higher
state of civilization than the nations who were their contemporaries?
Were the Jews intellectually more advanced than any other nation of
antiquity? Solomon was the contemporary of some of the immortal Greeks,
but while Greece was nursing the arts and crafts, the Jews, in order
to build a temple to God--a temple very much smaller than many of our
modern cathedrals and churches and far less formidable--had to send
abroad for masons and carpenters. "The laborers employed in the temple
were all the strangers in the land," says one of the texts. Under Saul,
their first king, while their enemies were well equipped with weapons of
warfare, the Jews had "neither sword nor spear in the hand of any of the
people except Saul and Jonathan." We are informed also that "in all the
land of Israel not a smith was to be found," and that the Jews had to
cross over to the land of the gentiles "to sharpen every man his share
and his ax." Surely we can not conclude from conditions as barbarous as
these that the Lord bestowed any great intellectual gifts upon the Jews
as tokens of his peculiar love for them.
It is admitted by the bible writers themselves that the neighboring
nations were much more powerful than "the chosen people," and that only
by the daily miraculous intervention of God could they cope with them at
all, and that even then they were not always successful. The following
text is quite significant:
_And the Lord was with Judah, and he drove out the inhabitants of the
mountain, but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because
they had chariots of iron_ *
* Judges i, 19.
We respectfully call Mr. Roosevelt's attention to this positive
testimony to the superiority in equipment of the Gentiles to the Jews in
bible times. Even the God of Israel was helpless against the _science_
of the Gentile nations. He could throw down stones from heaven, or stop
the sun and moon, or slay the firstborn of Egypt, but against science,
against human inventions, he could do nothing. Is it a sign of
superiority to depend upon miracles for one's daily existence? Is it not
rather a proof of the intellectual sterility of the people?
I am aware, of course, of the argument that Israel's superiority lay in
its clearer moral visions. But why should a people morally superior to
their neighbors be so mediocre in everything else? Is moral excellence
prejudicial to national development? But it is not true that the Old
Testament helped to make Israel morally superior to the heathen "round
about them." It is to be regretted that the opposite of this is the
truth. A few examples from the bible will be sufficient to support the
thesis that the bible did even less for the moral development of Israel
than it did for its intellectual and industrial expansion.
Abraham, one of the most "righteous" characters of the bible, twice
trafficked in his wife's or sister's, honor, by selling her, the first
time, to the King of Egypt for sheep and oxen, asses and camels, and
male and female slaves; he repeated the imposture by selling her a
second time to Abimelech, King of Gerar, for more "sheep and oxen, and
men servants and women servants." His son Isaac followed his father's
example, and sold to the same Abimelech his wife, Rebekah. Compare now
the behavior of the "heathen" Abimelech, with that of the bible saints.
After Rebekah had been introduced to the king as an unmarried woman by
her husband, Isaac, she was taken into his palace:
_And it came to pass, when he had been there a long time, that
Abimelech, king of the Philistines, looked out at a window, and saw,
and, behold, Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife.
And Abimelech called Isaac, and said, Behold, of a surety she is thy
wife: and how saidst thou, She is my sister? And Isaac said unto him,
Because I said, Lest I die for her.
And Abimelech said, What is this thou hast done unto us? one of the
people might lightly have lien with thy wife, and thou shouldst have
brought guiltiness upon us.
And Abimelech charged all his people, saying, He that toucheth this man
or his wife shall surely be put to death_. *
* Genesis xxvi, 8-II.
Which of these two characters was the more civilized? Though in daily
communion with God and protected by miracles at every step, Isaac
preferred to lie about his wife than to trust in God, and, like his
father, Abraham, he enriched himself by her shame; while the "heathen"
Abimelech, on the other hand, grieved at the thought of the wrong which
the lying Isaac might have tempted his subjects to commit. And while not
even David, another bible saint, ever thought of separating himself
from the woman he had stolen by causing her husband to be shot, these
"heathen" princes returned to Abraham and Isaac their wives.
Even Jehovah is compelled to pay a tribute to the "heathen" king:
_And God said unto him (Abimelech) in a dream, Yea, I know that thou
didst this in the integrity of thy heart; for I also withheld thee from
sinning against me: therefore suffered I thee not to touch her.
Now therefore restore the man his wife; for he is a prophet, and he
shall pray for thee, and thou shalt live: and if thou restore her not,
know thou that thou shalt surely die, thou, and all that are thine._ *
* Genesis xx, 6-8.
This is a terribly incriminating admission for the deity to make. After
paying a tribute to the "integrity" of Abimelech, and acknowledging his
innocence, Jehovah threatens to kill him if he will not fall upon his
knees before the mendacious Abraham, "for he is a prophet," and beg
him to pray for his salvation. But there is not a word of censure for
Abraham for lying about his wife or for keeping the price of her shame.
Abraham was orthodox, and that covers up a multitude of sins--even
to this day. Is it any wonder that educated Jews are deserting the
synagogue?
In the thirty-fourth chapter of Genesis we find another example of the
superiority in morals of the neighboring nations to the children of
Israel. One of the daughters of Israel "went out to see the daughters of
the land." It is difficult to understand just why this young woman "went
out" among the "heathen." At any rate, she was fair, and it was not long
before she found a princely suitor. Just as Sarah and Rebekah were
taken into the homes of the Gentiles, so was Leah, Jacob's daughter. The
prince desired to retain her as his wife, and with this end in view he
asked his royal father to get him "this damsel to wife." Then
Hamor, the king, called upon Jacob to ask for the hand of his daughter
in marriage to his son, Shechem. "The soul of my son Shechem," he said
to Jacob, "longeth for thy daughter: I pray you to give her him to
wife," and he enforced his plea for closer relations between Jews and
Gentiles by the following sensible argument:
_And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and
take our daughters unto you. And ye shall dwell with us: and the land
shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions
therein_. *
The prince, too, following his father, pleaded with Jacob, to let him
marry his daughter:
_And Shechem said unto her father, and unto her brethren, Let me find
grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give.
Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye
shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife._ **
* Genesis xxxiv, 9,10.
** Genesis xxxiv, 11,12.
We will let the "holy" bible tell Mr. Roosevelt the rest of the story:
_And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father
deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister:
And they said unto them, We can not do this thing, to give our sister to
one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us:
But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every
male of you be circumcised;
Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your
daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one
people.
But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take
our daughter, and we will be gone.
And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son.
And the young man deferred not to do the thing because he had delight in
Jacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his
father._ *
"And he was more honorable." Is there an Old Testament character of whom
it is written anywhere in the bible that he was "honorable"? But let
us see how "honorable" the sons of Jacob were in this affair. After the
Hivites had accepted the conditions, and were all circumcised, this is
what happened:
_And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of
the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his
sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males.
And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and
took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out.
The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because
they had defiled their sister.
They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which
was in the city, and that which was in the field.
And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took
they captive, and spoiled even all that was in the house_. **
* Genesis xxxiv, 13-19.
** Genesis xxxiv, 25-29.
Were the "inspired" sons of Jacob superior to their uninspired heathen
neighbors? To marry a human being of another creed was to defile
one's self. How can there be any brotherhood in the world with such a
doctrine? That the bible God approved of these barbarities will be seen
in the following story:
_And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his
brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of
all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before
the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw
it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his
hand.
And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of
them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the
plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying,
Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned
my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for
my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my
jealousy.
Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an
everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an
atonement for the children of Israel._ *
* Numbers xxv, 6-13.
Do men like Bryan and Roosevelt, who are representative men in America,
know that there are scores of such stories in the Word of God? How do
they excuse Jehovah for rewarding Phinehas for so shameful a crime? Why
kill a man who has loved and married a Gentile? But to this day, the
orthodox Jew sits on the floor and mourns for his son or daughter who
has married a Gentile, as one mourns for the dead.
In what sense, then, is it true that "the Old Testament carried Israel
far beyond the point any neighboring nation had then reached?"
Of course, as already explained, I do not believe the shameful things
the bible relates about the Jewish people, but had Colonel Roosevelt
read the bible carefully before writing about it; or had he taken the
pains to acquaint himself with the results of higher criticism, as
presented by Christian scholars themselves, he would never have rushed
into his statement about the Old Testament carrying the Jews beyond any
nation of antiquity. In his Ancient Faiths Embodied in Ancient Names,
Dr. T. Inman, speaking on this same subject, says this:
_Even the devil is not so black as he is painted; and however dark may
be the crimes of the ancient Jews, the historian is bound to ascertain
whether there are not some bright spots in the vast pall of evil deeds
that spreads over their history. Yet to me the task is hopeless; I can
not find one single redeeming trait in the national character of the
ancient Hebrews. It is difficult to find a people in the olden times,
whereof we have a history, who were not superior to the necks shall be
your footstools._
The same scholar sums up the commandments, exhortations, ordinances and
revelations of the authors of the Old Testament, and finds their burden
to be this:
_Keep yourselves to yourselves, and to the God whom we preach; shun your
neighbors, hate them, and, when you can, plunder and kill them. Agree
among yourselves and treat your priests well, and then you shall be
great and glorious, princes, kings and potentates in every land, and
your enemies' necks shall be your footstools._ *
It is very much safer for a public man to denounce the trusts than to
read and tell the truth about the bible. Mr. Roosevelt has only made
an assertion about the value of the Old Testament to the Jews. But
an assertion is not an argument. We respectfully call Mr. Roosevelt's
attention to the opinion which Jehovah, himself, held of his own people,
which will settle the question of whether or not the bible helped to
make the Jews better than their neighbors:
_And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and
stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it:
but I found none_. ***
* Vol. II, page 334.
** Inman, Vol. II, page 335.
*** Ezekiel xxii, 30.
III. "Let Them Produce It"
|PRODUCE a book like the bible," is the oft-repeated challenge addressed
to the critics of the book. It is impossible to produce a book like the
bible, without copying it. Another bible, exactly like the one we now
have, could only be had by making the second a duplicate of the first.
There is no other way of reproducing a book. We can no more reproduce
the bible than we can the "Arabian Nights," or Shakespeare. In fact,
no two things in nature are exactly alike. Men differ from one another,
even as do books. Another Socrates, or another Napoleon, or another
Lincoln, would be an impossibility. It is equally out of the question to
have another Nero, Constantine, or Pope Alexander VI.
To ask us to produce a book like the bible is as unreasonable as to ask
us to produce another Koran, or another Mahomet. If the new Koran be
like the old, no addition, or improvement has been made to religious
literature by its production; if the new Koran be different from the
old, then it is not a reproduction. "Let them produce it!" sounds
pompous enough, but it is all noise and rattle.
In a private letter to an inquirer, to whom I am indebted for the
quotation I am about to make, Mr. W. J. Bryan, referring to the author
of this book, asks, "If Mr. Mangasarian has books better than the bible,
there is nothing to prevent his presenting them to the public, and
driving the bible out of use." But that is precisely what is being done.
The bible has been, a step at a time, driven completely out of use in
the halls of learning. It is no longer an authority, for example, on
questions of science--geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology and all the
other branches of one of the principal pursuits of man. Better books on
these subjects have replaced the "Word of God." What is true of science
is true of history, politics, government, education, commerce; in all
these departments and activities of life better books have relegated the
bible into the background.
Did the framers of the American Constitution, for instance, which
Gladstone calls "the proudest product of the pen and brain" of man,
consult the bible for their work? Did they borrow the doctrine of the
separation of Church and State from the bible? The Church in the bible
dominates the State; but the Americans compelled the Church to take
its hands off the State. Did they learn that lesson from the bible? The
Constitution, again, declares that all power is derived from the consent
of the governed. Is that biblical? Does not the "Word of God" plainly
teach that "the powers that be are appointed of God," and that not to
obey the powers thus appointed, whether they be good or evil, is to
receive "damnation to their souls"? Evidently, then, the makers of
America had better books than the bible to be guided by.
Where again, is it permitted in the bible to tolerate all religions and
to favor none? If there is any one idea more prominent than any other in
the bible, it is that the religion which it announces is alone true, and
that all the others are pernicious, and to be suppressed by fire and
the sword. And religious tolerance is one of the glories of the American
Constitution.
It is its tyranny that is attacked, it is the forbidding and misleading
labels which the priesthood has placed upon it, which we wish to remove.
It is the bible as a fetish, or as the best book, or as a weapon of
persecution, that we wish to overthrow.
But if the bible is not divine, we are asked again, how explain the
fact that despite all the attacks of all the ages, it is still loved and
cherished by so many? We might as well ask, "If the bible is divine, how
is it that in spite of all the things done to bolster it up, there are
still so many who do not believe in it?" If long life and popularity
prove the bible true, they ought to prove the Chinese and the Hindu
bibles true, too. Is a man right because he is old, or is he wrong
because he is young? Is truth to be decided by counting beans, as
Socrates would ask? If it is majorities or age that counts, then
Christianity must have been false when it was new, and counted only a
handful of followers.
And then, there is the question, "What will you give us in place of the
bible?" We can not take anything away from you which you can keep. And
if you can not keep the bible, you have to let it go, whether or not you
can find another to take its place. But are there not better stories in
the world than those of the serpent in Eden; the fall of man; the
deluge and the drowning of the human race; the ten plagues of Egypt; the
talking ass; the whale that swallowed a man, and of the innumerable wars
and massacres? Is it true that the foolish rites and ceremonies, and the
unintelligible trinities, incarnations and resurrections in the bible
can not be matched? Are we really worrying that, if we give up these
tales and mysteries, we will not be able to find anything to replace
them?
If we desire fairy stories, there is the mythology of the Greeks; if we
want miracles, there is science with its real wonders; if we want tales
of human adventure and heroism, there is history, ancient and modern; if
we want biography, better than the lives of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob,
is the story of the glorious discoverers and inventors whose
genius transmuted human ignorance into knowledge and barbarism into
civilization. And for the sufferings of the gods, read the story of the
martyrdom of man!
What Is the Best Thing That Can Be Said in Favor of the Bible?
|LET us put in the mouth of the defenders of the bible the strongest,
the most convincing and the most plausible arguments imaginable. Nothing
is gained by denying to our adversary a fair chance. Who cares to
measure swords with a shadow?
I. "The bible ought to be judged by its fruits," is one of the most
commended arguments in its favor. It is claimed that civilization, with
all its blessings, is the gift of the bible. If this were true, it could
not prove the bible inspired. The inventors of steam, the mariner's
compass, and the printing-press have contributed much to human progress,
but would that prove that they were inspired? The writings of Socrates
and Aristotle greatly aided the development of Europe, as the wars of
Alexander the Great helped to educate all Asia. But does that make Greek
literature, or Alexander's wars, inspired?
But it is not true that civilization is the exclusive gift of the bible.
There was a civilization, in many respects fairer than ours, in Rome and
in Greece, without the bible; while in Christian Abyssinia there is no
civilization to-day to speak of. If the bible is the only civilizer, the
Jews should have been in advance of the Egyptians, the Babylonians, the
Greeks and the Romans. If the bible is the sole civilizing force,
how explain the Dark Ages, when there was no other book that was even
allowed to be named which did not agree with the bible?
II. The next "best" argument in favor of the bible is that it gives
the world the only information on God, the soul, the origin of man, his
destiny, life beyond death, and the mysteries of Revelation. But what is
the information worth? Is its account of the creation of man and of
the universe out of nothing, and the creation of woman out of a rib,
believable? Is the portrait of God, as given in the bible, acceptable?
And as to the beyond, does the bible throw any more light on the
question than the older or newer theo-sophic books?
III. A third "best" argument is that the bible presents the highest
morality and the noblest ideals ever known by man. What are they? Did
the bible discover morality? Was selfishness, or theft, or murder, or
meanness, a virtue before the bible forbade them? Was there no love of
one's neighbor, love of one's country, or nobody to practice charity, or
justice, in the world before Moses or Jesus? But it is not true that
the bible teaches the highest morality; on the contrary, as this book
undertakes to show, morality is the least of all the anxieties of the
bible. According to its teaching, _belief_ comes first; and all the
morality in the world, we are told, can not save the man who will not
_believe._
IV. Another plea made in behalf of the bible is that it has comforted
thousands and reformed some of the worst characters. "I have the witness
of the spirit in me," argues the convert, "that the bible is the 'Word
of God.'" And he proceeds to relate how he was downcast, or fallen
in sin, and the bible made a new man of him. We rejoice whenever the
disconsolate find cheer or the fallen arise. Nor is our happiness
diminished in the least when we are told that it was the bible which
worked the change. Whoever dries a tear upon the eyelid of sorrow, and
whatever the force which lifts the fallen to their feet, deserves the
gratitude of man. But if that proves the bible divine, why are there so
many who are not comforted, or so many of the fallen who do not rise
at all? An infallible book should save more people than the bible is
claimed to do. The greater part of Christendom, not to speak of the rest
of the world, is still to be saved. If the bible only saves some, so
does education and other purely human agencies; and if education does
not save everybody, neither does the bible. Wherein, then, is the
superiority of the "divine" to the human?
Moreover, if a man is comforted by reading Shakespeare, or Goethe, or
Emerson, or George Eliot, would that prove these authors inspired? Or,
if a sick man is made better by exercise, or medical attention, and a
bad man becomes good by a change of environment, would it follow that
these agencies were divine? If the bible is not the only power that can
help, then it is but one of many agencies, and why should one of the
many agencies which make for improvement be labeled "divine"?
Nor does the plea that, because "I feel it in my heart that the bible
is divine," make it so. If "I feel it in my heart" were enough to prove
anything true, other bibles would be as true as ours. The Turk and the
Chinaman "feel it" in their hearts about their gods as we do about ours.
The argument from _feeling_ practically dispenses with knowledge, and
leads to intellectual nihilism.
V. In defense of the bible it is further urged that, it being "a
heavenly treasure in an earthen vessel," allowance should be made for
the unavoidable imperfections which have crept into its pages. God
was the author, man was the amanuensis, they say, and, therefore, the
defects of the bible should be charged to the account of man. But why
should a heavenly treasure be enclosed in an earthen vessel? Are there
no heavenly vessels? Was not Jesus as divine as his father? Why could
not he have committed the revelation to writing? Why leave it to
unknown and unreliable reporters to transcribe a divine message? If
the reporters were not unreliable, then what is the complaint? But if
reliable reporters could not be found, the deity could just as easily,
and very much more safely, have written the whole of his message with
his own hand. Besides, a heavenly treasure which an earthen vessel can
spoil is not very heavenly. If the incorruptible can be corrupted, then
it is not any different from any other corruptible thing. Alas! for the
infallible book which has to be protected against printers' or revisers'
mistakes. Let us have a better bible--one that no earthen vessel can
contaminate.
VI. Finally, "Why not dwell upon the truths in the bible and let
alone the errors?" is another of the "strong arguments" of the bible
defenders. "There are truths enough in the bible, and to spare," say
they. "Why, then, waste time on its imperfections?" But it all depends
upon how serious the imperfections are. It is not the number of errors,
but their importance that counts. One serious blemish in a book would
be enough to condemn the whole book. The strength of a chain is in its
weakest link. It is no comfort to think that there are many more sound
links in the chain than weak ones. When the defects in the bible are
pointed out, it is no answer to say that many, or even most, of its
parts are all right. But this leads us to the next important question.
IV. How to Test a Book
|THE character of a book is determined not by its best, but by its worst
parts. This sounds paradoxical, but let us see if it is not true. The
bulk of a book may be composed of harmless and even of wholesome matter,
but if there is in it even half a page of questionable teaching, the
book becomes unsafe. One may write magnificently of liberty and the
rights of man, for instance, but if anywhere in the book, even though
only for once, assassination be recommended as a political weapon, that
one idea would give to the whole work a dangerous tendency. Indeed, the
good parts of such a book, if anything, add to the mischief it might do,
because they help to give it an air of respectability. In the same way,
a comedy, or a drama, may be perfectly proper in nearly all its parts,
but if it offends good taste, or attacks morality in a single line, the
play is bad. One indelicate scene in a production will bring upon its
author the just condemnation of the public. Likewise, a novel may be
crowded with helpful philosophical reflections, but the least vulgarity
in it would make the book a menace.
We are not taking the position that such books or plays should never
be read or acted, but that they should never be given an _unqualified_
endorsement. The bible is given an unqualified endorsement. To deserve
it, it ought not only to be good in the main, but good altogether. We
shall see if the bible is good even in the main; but before we take up
that phase of the subject let me give you a few more illustrations
to show that it is not true of the bible only that its worst parts
determine its character, but also of the men in it who are held up for
our emulation. If any one of our physical organs is in an unhealthy or
perilous condition, the health of the whole body is in question. The
soundness of all our other parts can not excuse the alarming symptoms of
the affected organ. The insurance companies will reject our application
if, though perfectly well in all our other organs, we are seriously
affected in any one of them.
By the same rule is measured a man's intellectual parts. It is not the
thousand sensible things a man says, but the one absurd or impossible
statement he advances which gives us the gauge of his intellect. To the
objection that the rule which we have been applying would do a great
injustice if applied to such a man as Alfred Russel Wallace, for
instance, who though an eminent scientist, and the rival of Charles
Darwin, was also a firm believer in spiritualism, the answer is that the
example cited proves the inadvisability of endorsing any book or man,
unqualifiedly. Only an infallible book, or an infallible man, could
command such endorsement. The bible, therefore, must be perfect in
everything, else its unqualified endorsement by the clergy is a real
danger.
But not only the physical and the intellectual, but also the moral
character of a man is ascertained by this rule. One act of treachery or
murder is enough to put a man behind the bars. Before such a man may be
restored to society he must reform, and, likewise, before a book may
be given full endorsement, the objectionable and the absurd must be
eliminated therefrom. In the same way, before any man could be held
up as a perfect example, he must be above the charge of even a single
serious defect. If you would have your play staged, cut out the
offending lines; if you would have your bible read in the home and the
school, and the characters therein depicted, admired and followed, cut
out the scandalous stories and the immoral teachings it contains. You
will not do this? Then both science and morality have the right to
condemn your book, and forbid its use in the public schools, by the help
of the courts. We hope that in the near future the civilized world
will avail itself of this right, by taking steps to render the bible as
harmless in church and Sunday-school as it now is in the public schools.
This can be done by breaking down the _unqualified endorsement_ which
the sectarian interests of the country have given the book. Unveil the
bible! and its glamour will vanish.
The most telling proofs in favor of the Rationalist position on the
bible are the admissions which, from time to time, the defenders of the
bible themselves make. The editors of the _Oberlin College Magazine_,
which is a religious publication, in an article on "Bible Hero
Classics," suggest that parts of the bible should be excluded from the
mails:
_Modern scholarship has so changed the point of view with which the
bible is regarded, that one no longer has the confidence, in sending the
"seeker after God" to the bible to believe that he will certainly find
Him there. The Old Testament is a complete literature with units of
varying value. Much of it is incomprehensible to the ordinary reader.
Parts of it should be excluded from the mails._
Prof. Dr. Charles Henderson, the chaplain of the University of Chicago,
expresses his utter contempt for certain parts of the bible: "John
the Baptist's God was no better than our devil. The things which
made Solomon and David saints in their own day would land them in the
penitentiary in ours." *
* Reported in the Tribune, Chicago.
The bible quotes God as saying that David was a man after His own heart,
but this divine tells us David was a criminal. Could a more damaging
admission be made by a clergyman? And yet the book that can mistake a
scoundrel for a saint is to be placed in the hands of our children at a
very tender age, and foisted upon the whole nation as "the sublimest of
books," to quote the words of another divine. * A book concerning which
its own friends can hold such diametrically opposite opinions can not
be, at least, a very honest book. Honest people speak or write to be
understood. If what one reader of the bible calls God, another calls the
devil; or if to one reader David is a great saint, while to another he
is only a scamp, deserving a long term in jail, then, surely, either we
can not understand the bible, in which case the book is worthless;
or the bible was not meant to be understood, which leads to the same
conclusion.
* Editor Sunday School Times.
The Rev. J. Biresley, writing in the _Christian World_, pays,
unconsciously, a great tribute to the Rationalist: "More than thirty
years ago I listened to a lecture by Charles Bradlaugh on 'Is the Bible
True'? His assertions shocked the orthodox among his hearers, and yet
there was scarcely one of them which the biblical students of to-day
would not accept." What a compliment this is to the courage of the
Rationalist. He dared to shock the orthodox at a time when they had the
power to persecute him unto death. And what an admission this is, of the
intellectual and moral superiority of the heretic to the believer! It
takes "thirty years" of dilly-dallying before Christian scholars will
admit that the persecuted heretic was in the right. Is it any wonder
that the world is losing respect for priest and preacher and honoring
the heretics as the pioneers of the golden day of truth?
To the churches we say: "If you would save the bible, separate the good
from the bad, and the false from the true. Do not print them all in one
volume as the 'Holy Bible.' If you have not the courage to call any part
of the bible bad, or any of its statements false--we shall do it for
you."
Speak According to Knowledge
|THERE are also good things in the bible. It would be regrettable,
indeed, to believe it possible for a book of the size of the bible to be
wholly bad. Literature is life; and it would be as impossible to find
a people with a literature wholly bad, as it would be to find a people
with an infallible literature. Together with the _Vedas_ of India, the
_Avesta_ of the Pharisees, the _Five Kings_ of the Chinese, the Buddhist
_Tri Pitikes_, and the Moslem _Koran_, the Jewish-Christian scriptures
contain many splendid passages.
In all ancient literature we run across bits of fine poetry and
eloquence. It would really be impossible to collect all the literature
of a people, of whatever race or period in history, into one volume,
without finding in the collection many a precious gem. The cry of a man
in distress is always touching, be he Jew or Hindu. The love of man for
home and fatherland, for wife and child, for truth and freedom, in any
book, is sublime. Friendship is the one rose without a thorn, wherever
it blooms. A melody does not have to be inspired, to be sung in all
lands. We weep for the sufferings of a savage of ten thousand years ago,
and we laugh with the men of wit and humor of every race and clime. We
have no prejudice against the bible. All we demand is the liberty
to read it as we do any other literature: To enjoy what is noble and
inspiring in it, and to reject what is false and degrading. It is the
object of our efforts to make it perfectly proper, as well as safe,
for any one to read and tell the truth about the bible. No man shall be
compelled to agree with it upon penalty of losing his standing in the
community now, or his "soul" in the hereafter.
In comparing one book with another, we must bear in mind that it is not
the ideas in which they agree, but those in which they disagree, that
justifies their existence. All the seven bibles of the world * forbid
crime and recommend the virtues. Are they, then, all equally worthy?
If the important thing is sameness of teaching, why is not one bible
enough? But there are many bibles, because it is the differences that
preserve, as well as distinguish, one book from another. We would never
be able to tell wherein the bible of Confucius was superior to the
Moslem Koran, or the Koran to the Avesta of Zoroaster, or again, the
book of science to the creeds, if we confined our investigations to the
things held in common by them all. It is by the things in which they
_disagree_ that their real character is revealed.
* The seven bibles of the world are the Koran of the
Mohammedans, the Tri Pitikes of Buddhists, the Five Kings of
the Chinese, the three Vedas of the Hindus, the Zend Avesta
of the Persians, the Eddas of Scandinavia, and Old and New
Testaments of the Christians.
"Thou shalt love thy neighbor" is in all the bibles, but "Speak
according to knowledge" is not in any of the bibles--it is found only in
the bible of science, and that is the difference between religion, which
builds on _faith_, and science, which builds on _knowledge_.
In this one difference is the glory of science, a glory which is not
shared by any of the sectarian bibles of the world.
"Speak according to knowledge" and "Speak according to knowledge."
That is to say, "Let your tongue keep pace with your mind," are the two
commandments for which one looks in vain in the Jewish-Christian bible.
Neither Moses nor Jesus ever thought of commanding, or at least of
permitting, people to confine their statements and beliefs to the
facts--of never dogmatizing about the unknown, which vice has converted
the world into a babel of discord, hatred and persecution. Never did
either of these teachers think of inculcating so sweet, so sane,
so wholesome, so modest, so reverent, so peaceful, a command as is
expressed in the caution which science has posted up at every turn of
the road: Speak according to knowledge.
Nor does the bible allow people to speak their true thoughts. Could any
book be guilty of a greater offense against the highest ethics? All the
Ten Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount can not make up for this
failure of the bible to encourage, yea; and to command, in unmistakably
plain and persuasive language, liberty of thought and speech as the only
guarantee of honesty in religion, and as the only enemy which falsehood
fears. On the other hand, how can any book be called good, much less the
best, in all the world, which contains such a passage as the following:
_He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth
not shall be damned._ *
* Mark xvi, 16.
Can freedom and the bible live under the same roof? Would it be safe
to speak according to knowledge, when "damnation" is the penalty for so
doing? Was it to encourage honesty, liberty of conscience and tolerance
that so Asiatic and despotic a command as the above has been translated
into all the languages of the earth? Would not the bible have been a
more helpful book if it had said: "Do not believe upon insufficient
evidence, for to do so is to prefer error to truth"? But there is not
a single bible that contains so daring a commandment. If a man may not
"Speak according to knowledge," he can not act according to conscience,
and a religion which denies to us these two rights instead of saving us,
destroys us body and soul.
The only difference, in respect to freedom of worship, between the New
Testament and the Old is that, while the New Testament postpones the
punishment of the free thinker until the day of judgment, the Old
Testament proceeds to "damn" him here and now:
_If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or
the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice
thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods... Thou shalt not
consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity
him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: but thou
shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to
death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone
him with stones that he die_. *
* Deuteronomy xiii, 6-10.
It brings tears into my eyes to think of Europe and America upon their
knees, with blanched cheeks and trembling lips, before such a text. Why
retain so unjust and tyrannical a commandment in a book which the people
are asked to love and obey? And why translate such evil words into all
the tongues of man? What has happened to the European races--to the
descendants of the glorious Greeks and the proud Romans--that they can
fawn over a book that commands a mother to kill her child for not
believing as she does? Surely a blight of some kind must have fallen
upon both the heart and intellect of the Western world--else how explain
the gilt-edged bibles, containing these inhuman texts by the score,
which young and old carry in their pockets, and almost worship?
But the full import of this text is in the words we have printed in
italics: "_Neither shall thine eye pity him_." It seems as though the
being who gave the commandment feared that the natural affections might
lead fathers or mothers to hesitate dipping their hands in the blood
of their own sons and daughters; hence, the imperative, "Neither shall
thine eye pity him." Yes, the heart must turn into a stone, even as
the head must be stunned, before anyone can be a good Jew or a good
Christian.