The Gospels which are yet mentioned by the names popularly associated

with each do not tell us the hour, or the day, or the month, or--save

Luke--the year, in which Jesus was born. The only point on which the

critical divines, who have preceded Dr. Tischendorf, generally agree is,

that Jesus was not born on Christmas day. The Oxford Chronology,

collated with a full score of recognised authorities, gives us a period

of more than seven years within which to place the date. So confused is

the story as to the time of the birth, that while Matthew would make

Jesus born in the lifetime of Herod, Luke would fix the period of

Jesus's birth as after Herod's death.

Christmas itself is a day surrounded with curious ceremonies of pagan

origin, and in no way serving to fix the 25th December as the natal day.

Yet the exact period at which Almighty God, as a baby boy, entered the

world to redeem long-suffering humanity from the consequences of Adam's

ancient sin, should be of some importance.

Nor is there any great certainty as to the place of birth of Christ. The

Jews, apparently in the very presence of Jesus, reproached him that he

ought to have been born at Bethlehem. Nathaniel regarded him as of

Nazareth. Jesus never appears to have said to either, "I was born at

Bethlehem." In Matthew ii, 6, we find a quotation from the prophet: "And

thou Bethlehem, in the land of Judah, art not the least amongst the

princes of Juda, for out of thee shall come a Governor that shall rule

my people-Israel." Matthew lays the scene of the birth in Bethlehem, and

Luke adopts the same place, especially bringing the child to Bethlehem

for that purpose, and Matthew tells us it is done to fulfil a prophecy.

Micah v, 2, the only place in which similar words occur, is not a

prophecy referring to Jesus at all. The words are: "But thou Bethlehem

Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of

thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel, whose

goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting." This is not

quoted correctly in Matthew, and can hardly be said by any straining of

language to apply to Jesus. The credibility of a story on which

Christianity rests is bolstered up by prophecy in default of

contemporary corroboration. The difficulties are not lessened in tracing

the parentage. In Matthew i,

17, it is stated that "the generations from Abraham to David are

fourteen generations, and from David until the carrying away into

Babylon are fourteen generations, and from the carrying away into

Babylon unto Christ are fourteen generations." Why has Matthew made such

a mistake in his computation of the genealogies--in the last division we

have only thirteen names instead of fourteen, even including the name of

Jesus? Is this one of the cases of "painful uncertainty" which has

induced the Religious Tract Society and Dr. Tischendorf to wish to set

aside the _textus receptus_ altogether?

From David to Zorobabel there are in the Old Testament twenty

generations; in Matthew, seventeen generations; and in Luke,

twenty-three generations. In Matthew from David to Christ there are

twenty-eight generations, and in Luke from David to Christ forty-three

generations. Yet, according to the Religious Tract Society, it is on the

credibility of these genealogies as part of the Gospel history that the

foundation of Christianity rests. The genealogy in the first Gospel

arriving at David traces to Jesus through Solomon; the third Gospel from

David traces through Nathan. In Matthew the names from David are

Solomon, Roboam, Abia, Asa, Josaphat, Joram, Ozias; and in the Old

Testament we trace the same names from David to Ahaziah, whom I presume

to be the same as Ozias. But in 2nd Chronicles xxii, 11, we find one

Joash, who is not mentioned in Matthew at all. If the genealogy in

Matthew is correct, why is the name not mentioned? Amaziah is mentioned

in chap. xxiv, v. 27, and in chap. xxvi, v. 1, Uzziah, neither of whom

[is] mentioned in Matthew, where Ozias is named as begetting Jotham,

when in fact three generations of men have come in between. In Matthew

and Luke, Zorobabel is represented as the son of Salathiel, while in 1

Chronicles iii, 17-19, Zerubbabel is stated to be the son of Pedaiah,

the brother of Salathiel. Matthew says Abiud was the son of Zorobabel

(chap. i, v. 13). Luke iii, 27, says Zorobabel's son was Rhesa. The Old

Testament contradicts both, and gives Meshullam, and Hananiah, and

Shelomith, their sister (1 Chronicles iii, 19), as the names of

Zorobabel's children. Is this another piece of evidence in favor of Dr.

Tischendorfs admirable doctrine, that it is necessary to reconstruct the

text?

In the genealogies of Matthew and Luke there are only three names

agreeing after that of David, viz., Salathiel, Zorobabel, and

Joseph--all the rest are utterly different. The attempts at explanation

which have been hitherto offered, in order to reconcile these

genealogies, are scarcely creditable to the intellects of the Christian

apologists. They allege that "Joseph, who by nature was the son of

Jacob, in the account of the law was the son of Heli. For Heli and Jacob

were brothers by the same mother, and Heli, who was the elder, dying

without issue, Jacob, as the law directed, married his widow; in

consequence of such marriage, his son Joseph was reputed in the law the

son of Heli." This is pure invention to get over a difficulty--an

invention not making the matter one whit more clear. For if you suppose

that these two persons were brothers, then unless you invent a death of

the mother's last husband and the widow's remarriage Jacob and Heli

would be the sons of the same father, and the list of the ancestors

should be identical in each genealogy. But to get over the difficulty

the pious do this. They say, although brothers, they were only

half-brothers; although sons of the same mother, they were not sons of

the same father, but had different fathers. If so, how is it that

Salathiel and Zorobabel occur as father and son in both genealogies?

Another fashion of accounting for the contradiction is to give one as

the genealogy of Joseph and the other as the genealogy of Mary. "Which?"

"Luke," it is said. Why Luke? what are Luke's words? Luke speaks of

Jesus being, "as was supposed, the son of Joseph, which was the son of

Heli." When Luke says Joseph, the son of Heli, [does] he mean Mary, the

daughter of Heli? Does the Gospel say one thing and mean another?

because if that argument is worth anything, then in every case where a

man has a theory which disagrees with the text, he may say the text

means something else. If this argument be permitted we must abandon in

Scriptural criticism the meaning which we should ordinarily intend to

convey by any given word. If you believe Luke meant daughter, why does

the same word mean son in every other case all through the remainder of

the genealogy? And if the genealogy of Matthew be that of Joseph, and

the genealogy of Luke be that of Mary, they ought not to have any point

of agreement at all until brought to David. They, nevertheless, do agree

and contradict each other in several places, destroying the probability

of their being intended as distinct genealogies. There is some evidence

that Luke does not give the genealogy of Mary in the Gospel itself. We

are told that Joseph went to Bethlehem to be numbered because he was of

the house of David: if it had been Mary it would have surely said so. As

according to the Christian theory, Joseph was not the father of Jesus,

it is not unfair to ask how it can be credible that Jesus's genealogy

could be traced to David in any fashion through Joseph?

So far from Mary being clearly of the tribe of Judah (to which the

genealogy relates) her cousinship to Elizabeth would make her rather

appear to belong to the tribe of Levi.

To discuss the credibility of the miraculous conception and birth would

be to insult the human understanding. The mythologies of Greece, Italy,

and India, give many precedents of sons of Gods miraculously born.

Italy, Greece, and India, must, however, yield the palm to Judea. The

incarnate Chrishna must give way to the incarnate Christ. A miraculous

birth would be scouted today as monstrous; antedate it 2,000 years and

we worship it as miracle.

Matt. i, 22, 23, says: "Now all this was done, that it might be

fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a

virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall

call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us." This

is supposed to be a quotation from Isaiah vii, 14-16: "Therefore the

Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold a virgin shall conceive, and

bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he

eat, that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good. For

before the child shall know to refuse the evil and choose the good, the

land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings."

But in this, as indeed in most other cases of inaccurate quotation, the

very words are omitted which would show its utter inapplicability to

Jesus. Even in those which are given, the agreement is not complete.

Jesus was not called Emmanuel. And even if his mother Mary were a

virgin, this does not help the identity, as the word OLME in Isaiah,

rendered "virgin" in our version, does not convey the notion of

virginity, for which the proper word is BeThULE; OLME is used of a

youthful spouse recently married. The allusion to the land being

forsaken of both her kings, omitted in Matthew, shows how little the

passage is prophetic of Jesus.

The story of the annunciation made to Joseph in one Gospel, to Mary in

the other, is hardly credible on any explanation. If you assume the

annunciations as made by a God of all-wise purpose, the purpose should,

at least, have been to prevent doubt of Mary's chastity; but the

annunciation is made to Joseph only after Mary is suspected by Joseph.

Two annunciations are made, one of them in a dream to Joseph, when he is

suspicious as to the state of his betrothed wife; the other made by the

angel Gabriel (whoever that angel may be) to Mary herself, who

apparently conceals the fact, and is content to be married, although

with child not by her intended husband. The statement--that Mary being

found with child by the Holy Ghost, her husband, not willing to make her

a public example, was minded to put her away privily--is quite

incredible. If Joseph found her with child _by the Holy Ghost_, how

could he even think of making a public example of her shame when there

was nothing of which she could be ashamed--nothing, if he believed in

the Holy Ghost, of which he need have been ashamed himself, nothing

which need have induced him to wish to put her away privily. It is

clear--according to Matthew--that Mary was found with child, and that

the Holy Ghost parentage was not even imagined by Joseph until after he

had dreamed about the matter.

Although the birth of Jesus was specially announced by an angel, and

although Mary sang a joyful song consequent on the annunciation,

corroborated by her cousin's greeting, yet when Simeon speaks of the

child, in terms less extraordinary, Joseph and Mary are surprised at it

and do not understand it. Why were they surprised? Is it credible that

so little regard was paid to the miraculous annunciation? Or is this

another case of the "painful uncertainty" alluded to by Dr. Teschendorf?

Again, when Joseph and Mary found the child Jesus in the temple, and he

says, "Wist ye not that I must be about my father's business?" they do

not know what he means, so that either what the angel had said had been

of little effect, or the annunciations did not occur at all. Can any

reliance be placed on a narrative so contradictory? An angel was

specially sent to acquaint a mother that her son about to be born is the

Son of God, and yet that mother is astonished when her son says, "Wist

ye not I must be about my father's business?"

The birth of Jesus was, according to Matthew, made publicly known by

means of certain wise men. These men saw his star in the East, but it

did not tell them much, for they were obliged to come and ask

information from Herod the King. Is astrology credible? Herod inquired

of the chief priests and scribes; and it is evident Jeremiah was right,

if he said, "The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by

their means," for these chief priests misquoted to suit their purposes,

and invented a false prophecy by omitting a few words from, and adding a

few words to, a text until it suited their purpose. The star, after they

knew where to go, and no longer required its aid, went before them,

until it came and stood over where the young child was. The credibility

of this will be better understood if the reader notice some star, and

then see how many houses it will be over. Luke does not seem to have

been aware of the star story, and he relates about an angel who tells

some shepherds the good tidings, but this last-named adventure does not

appear to have happened in the reign of Herod at all. Is it credible

that Jesus was born twice? After the wise men had left Jesus, an angel

warned Joseph to flee with him and Mary into Egypt, and Joseph did fly,

and remained there with the young child and his mother until the death

of Herod; and this, it is alleged, was done to fulfil a prophecy. On

referring to Hosea xi, 1,

we find the words have no reference whatever to Jesus, and that,

therefore, either the tale of the flight is invented as a fulfilment of

the prophecy, or the prophecy manufactured to support the tale of the

flight. The Jesus of Luke never went into Egypt at all in his childhood.

Directly after the birth of the child his parents instead of flying away

because of persecution into Egypt, went peacefully up to Jerusalem to

fulfil all things according to the law, returned thence to Nazareth, and

apparently dwelt there, going up to Jerusalem every year until Jesus was

twelve years of age.

In Matthew ii, 15, we are told that Jesus remained in Egypt, "That it

might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet saying,

Out of Egypt have I called my son." In Hosea ii, 1, we read, "When

Israel was a child, then I loved him, and called my son out of Egypt."

In no other prophet is there any similar text. This not only is not a

prophecy of Jesus, but is, on the contrary, a reference to the Jewish

Exodus from Egypt. Is the prophecy manufactured to give an air of

credibility to the Gospel history, or how will the Religious Tract

Society explain it? The Gospel writings betray either a want of good

faith, or great incapacity on the part of their authors in the mode

adopted of distorting quotations from the Old Testament?

When Jesus began to be about thirty years of age he was baptised by John

in the river Jordan. John, who, according to Matthew, knew him, forbade

him directly he saw him; but, according to the writer of the fourth

Gospel, he knew him not, and had, therefore, no occasion to forbid him.

God is an "invisible" "spirit," whom no man hath seen (John i, 18), or

can see (Exodus xxxiii, 20); but the man John saw the spirit of God

descending like a dove. God is everywhere, but at that time was in

heaven, from whence he said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well

pleased." Although John heard this from God's own mouth, he some time

after sent two of his disciples to Jesus to inquire if he were really

the Christ (Matthew xi, 2, 3). Yet it is upon the credibility of this

story, says Dr. Teschendorf, that Christianity rests like a building on

its foundations.

It is utterly impossible John could have known and not have known Jesus

at the same time. And if, as the New Testament states, God is infinite

and invisible, it is incredible that as Jesus stood in the river to be

baptised, the Holy Ghost was seen as it descended on his head as a dove,

and that God from heaven said, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am

well pleased." Was the indivisible and invisible spirit of God separated

in three distinct and two separately visible persons? How do the

Religious Tract Society reconcile this with the Athanasian Creed?

The baptism narrative is rendered doubtful by the language used as to

John, who baptised Jesus. It is said, "This is he that was spoken of by

the prophet Esaias, saying, The voice of one crying in the wilderness,

prepare ye the way of the Lord, make his paths straight." Isaiah xl,

1-5, is, "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people, saith your God. Speak ye

comfortably to Jerusalem, and cry unto her that her warfare is

accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned; for she hath received of

the Lord's hand double for all her sins. The voice of him that crieth in

the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the

desert a highway for our God. Every valley shall be exalted, and every

mountain and hill shall be made low: and the crooked shall be made

straight, and the rough places plain: and the glory of the Lord shall be

revealed." These verses have not the most remote relation to John? And

this manufacture of prophecies for the purpose of bolstering up a tale,

serves to prove that the writer of the Gospel tries by these to impart

an air of credibility to an otherwise incredible story.

Immediately after the baptism, Jesus is led up of the Spirit into the

wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. There he fasts forty days and

forty nights.

John says, in chapter i, 35, "Again, the next day after, John stood and

two of his disciples; and looking upon Jesus as he walked, he said,

behold the Lamb of God. And the two disciples heard him speak, and they

followed Jesus." Then, at the 43rd verse, he says, "The day following

Jesus would go forth into Galilee, and findeth Philip, and saith unto

him, follow me." And in chapter ii, 1, he says, "And the third day there

was a marriage in Cana of Galilee, and the mother of Jesus was there;

and both Jesus was called and his disciples unto the marriage."

According to Matthew, there can be no doubt that immediately after the

baptism Jesus went into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil. And

we are to believe that Jesus was tempted of the Devil and fasting in the

wilderness, and at the same time feasting at a marriage in Cana of

Galilee? Is it possible to believe that Jesus actually did fast forty

days and forty nights? If Jesus did not fast in his capacity as man, in

what capacity did he fast? And if Jesus fasted, being God, the fast

would be a mockery; and the account that he became a hungered must be

wrong. It is barely possible that in some very abnormal condition or

cataleptic state, or state of trance, a man might exist, with very

slight nourishment or without food, but that a man could walk about,

speak, and act, and, doing this, live forty days and nights without food

is simply an impossibility.

Is the story that the Devil tempted Jesus credible? If Jesus be God, can

the Devil tempt God? A clergyman of the Church of England writing on

this says: "That the Devil should appear personally to the Son of God is

certainly not more wonderful than that he should, in a more remote age,

have appeared among the sons of God, in the presence of God himself, to

torment the righteous Job. But that Satan should carry Jesus bodily and

literally through the air, first to the top of a high mountain, and then

to the topmost pinnacle of the temple, is wholly inadmissable, it is an

insult to our understanding, and an affront to our great creator and

redeemer." Supposing, despite the monstrosity of such a supposition, an

actual Devil--and this involves the dilemma that the Devil must either

be God-created, or God's co-eternal rival; the first supposition being

inconsistent with God's goodness, and the second being inconsistent with

his power; but supposing such a Devil, is it credible that the Devil

should tempt the Almighty maker of the universe with "all these will I

give thee if thou wilt fall down and worship me?"

In the very names of the twelve Apostles there is an uncertainty as to

one, whose name was either Lebbaeus, Thaddaeus, or Judas. It is in

Matthew x, 3, alone that the name of Lebbaeus is mentioned,

thus--"Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus." We are told, on this

point, by certain Biblicists, that some early MSS have not the words

"whose surname was Thaddaeus," and that these words have probably been

inserted to reconcile the Gospel according to Matthew with that

attributed to Mark. In the English version of the Rheims Testament used

in this country by our Roman Catholic brethren, the reconciliation

between Matthew and Mark is completed by omitting the words "Lebbaeus

whose surname was," leaving only the name "Thaddaeus" in Matthew's text.

The revised version of the New Testament now agrees with the Rheims

version, and the omission will probably meet with the entire concurrence

of Dr. Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society, now they boast

autograph letters of approval from the infallible head of the Catholic

Church. If Matthew x, 3, and Mark iii,

18, be passed as reconciled, although the first calls the twelfth

disciple Lebbaeus, and the second gives him the name Thaddaeus; there is

yet the difficulty that in Luke vi, 16, corroborated by John xiv, 22,

there is a disciple spoken of as "Judas, not Iscariot," "Judas, the

brother of James." Commentators have endeavored to clear away this last

difficulty by declaring that Thaddaeus is a Syriac word, having much the

same meaning as Judas. This has been answered by the objection that if

Matthew's Gospel uses Thad-daeus in lieu of Judas, then he ought to

speak of Thaddaeus Iscariot, which he does not; and it is further

objected also that while there are some grounds for suggesting a Hebrew

original for the Gospel attributed to Matthew, there is not the

slightest pretence for alleging that Matthew wrote in Syriac. The

Gospels also leave us in some doubt as to whether Matthew is Levi, or

whether Matthew and Levi are two different persons.

The account of the calling of Peter is replete with contradictions.

According to Matthew, when Jesus first saw Peter, the latter was in a

vessel fishing with his brother Andrew, casting a net into the sea of

Galilee. Jesus walking by the sea said to them--

"Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men." The two brothers did

so, and they became Christ's disciples. When Jesus called Peter no one

was with him but his brother Andrew. A little further on, the two sons

of Zebedee were in a ship with their father mending nets, and these

latter were separately called. From John, we learn that Andrew was

originally a disciple of John the Baptist, and that when Andrew first

saw Jesus, Peter was not present, but Andrew went and found Peter who,

if fishing, must have been angling on land, telling him "we have found

the Messiah," and that Andrew then brought Peter to Jesus, who said,

"Thou art Simon, the son of Jonas; thou shalt be called Cephas." There

is no mention in John of the sons of Zebedee being a little further on,

or of any fishing in the sea of Galilee. This call is clearly on land.

Luke's Gospel states that when the call took place, Jesus and Peter were

both at sea. Jesus had been preaching to the people, who pressing upon

him, he got into Simon's ship, from which he preached. After this he

directed Simon to put out into the deep and let down the nets. Simon

answered, "Master, we have toiled all night and taken nothing;

nevertheless at thy word I will let down the net." No sooner was this

done, than the net was filled to breaking, and Simon's partners, the two

sons of Zebedee, came to help, when at the call of Jesus, they brought

their ships to land, and followed him.

Is it credible that there were three several calls, or that the Gospels

being inspired, you could have three contradictory versions of the same

event? Has the story been here "painfully modified," or how do Dr.

Tischendorf and the Religious Tract Society clear up the matter? Is it

credible that, as stated in Luke, Jesus had visited Simon's house, and

cured Simon's wife's mother, before the call of Simon, but did not go to

Simon's house for that purpose, until after the call of Simon, as

related in Matthew? It is useless to reply that the date of Jesus's

visit is utterly unimportant, when we are told that it is upon the

credibility of the complete narrative that Christianity must rest. Each

stone is important to the building, and it is not competent for the

Christian advocate to regard as useless any word which the Holy Ghost

has considered important enough to reveal.

Are the miracle stories credible? Every ancient nation has had its

miracle workers, but modern science has relegated all miracle history to

realms of fable, myth, illusion, delusion, or fraud. Can Christian

miracles be made, the exceptions? Is it likely that the nations amongst

whom the dead were restored to life would have persistently ignored the

author of such miracles? Were the miracles purposeless, or if intended

to convince the Jews, was God unable to render his intentions effective?

That five thousand persons should be fed with five loaves and two

fishes, and that an apparent excess should remain beyond the original

stock, is difficult to believe; but that shortly after this--Jesus

having to again perform a similar miracle for four thousand persons--his

own disciples should ignore his recent feat, and wonder from whence the

food was to be derived, is certainly startlingly incredible. If this

exhibition of incredulity were pardonable on the part of the twelve

apostles, living witnesses of greater wonders, how much more pardonable

the unbelief of the sceptic of to-day, which the Religious Tract Society

seek to overcome by a faint echo of asserted events all contrary to

probability, and with nineteen centuries intervening.

The casting out the devils presents phaenomena requiring considerable

credulity, especially the story of the devils and the swine. To-day

insanity is never referable to demoniacal possession, but eighteen

hundred years ago the subject of lunacy had not been so patiently

investigated as it has been since. That one man could now be tenanted by

several devils is a proposition for which the maintainer would in the

present generation incur almost universal contempt; yet the repudiation

of its present possibility can hardly be consistent with implicit

credence in its ancient history. That the devils and God should hold

converse together, although not without parallel in the book of Job, is

inconsistent with the theory of an infinitely good Deity; that the

devils should address Jesus as son of the most high God, and beg to be

allowed to enter a herd of swine, is at least ludicrous; yet all this

helps to make up the narrative on which Dr. Tischendorf relies. That

Jesus being God should pray to his Father that "the cup might pass from"

him is so incredible that even the faithful ask us to regard it as

mystery. That an angel from heaven could strengthen Jesus, the almighty

God, is equally mysterious. That where Jesus had so prominently preached

to thousands, the priests should need any one like Judas to betray the

founder of Christianity with a kiss, is absurd; his escapade in flogging

the dealers, his wonderful cures, and his raising Lazarus and Jairus's

daughter should have secured him, if not the nation's love, faith, and

admiration, at least a national reputation and notoriety. It is not

credible if Judas betrayed Jesus by a kiss that the latter should have

been arrested upon his own statement that he was Jesus. That Peter

should have had so little faith as to deny his divine leader three times

in a few hours is only reconcilable with the notion that he had remained

unconvinced by his personal intercourse with the incarnate Deity. The

mere blunders in the story of the denial sink into insignificance in

face of this major difficulty. Whether the cock did or did not crow

before the third denial, whether Peter was or was not in the same

apartment with Jesus at the time of the last denial, are comparatively

trifling questions, and the contradictions on which they are based may

be the consequence of the errors which Dr. Tischendorf says have crept

into the sacred writings.

Jesus said, "as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of

the whale, so shall the son of man be three days and three nights in the

heart of the earth." Jesus was crucified on Friday, was buried on Friday

evening, and yet the first who went to the grave on the night of

Saturday as it began to dawn towards Sunday, found the body of Jesus

already gone. Did Jesus mean he should be three days and three nights in

the grave? Is there any proof that his body remained in the grave for

three hours? Who went first to the grave? was it Mary Magdalene alone,

as in John, or two Marys as in Matthew, or the two Marys and Salome as

in Mark, or the two Marys, Joanna, and several unnamed women as in Luke?

To whom did did Jesus first appear? Was it, as in Mark, to Mary

Magdalene, or to two disciples going to Emmaus, as in Luke, or to the

two Marys near the sepulchre, as in Matthew? Is the eating boiled fish

and honeycomb by a dead God credible? Did Jesus ascend to heaven the

very day of his resurrection, or did an interval of nearly six weeks

intervene?

Is this history credible, contained as it is in four contradictory

biographies, outside which biographies we have, as Dr. Tisch-endorf

admits, "no other source of information with respect to the life of

Jesus?" This history of an earth-born Deity, descended through a

crime-tainted ancestry, and whose genealogical tree is traced through

one who was not his father; this history of an infinite God nursed as a

baby, growing through childhood to manhood like any frail specimen of

humanity; this history, garnished with bedevilled men, enchanted fig

tree, myriads of ghosts, and scores of miracles, and by such garnishment

made more akin to an oriental romance than to a sober history; this

picture of the infinite invisible spirit incarnate visible as man;

immutability subject to human passions and infirmities; the creator come

to die, yet wishing to escape the death which shall bring peace to his

God-tormented creatures; God praying to himself and rejecting his own

prayer; God betrayed by a divinely-appointed traitor; God the immortal

dying, and in the agony of the death-throes--stronger than the strong

man's will--crying with almost the last effort of his dying breath, that

he being God, is God forsaken!

If all this be credible, what story is there any man need hesitate to

believe?

Dr. Tischendorf asks how it has been possible to impugn the credibility

of the four Gospels, and replies that this has been done by denying that

the Gospels were written by the men whose names they bear. In the

preceding pages it has been shown that the credibility of the Gospel

narrative is impugned because it is uncorroborated by contemporary

history, because it is self-contradictory, and because many of its

incidents are _prima facie_ most improbable, and some of them utterly

impossible. Even English Infidels are quite prepared to admit that the

four Gospels may be quite anonymous; and yet, that their anonymous

character need be of no weight as an argument against their truth. All

that is urged on this head is that the advocates of the Gospel history

have sought to endorse and give value to the otherwise unreliable

narratives by a pretence that some of the Evangelists, at least, were

eyewitnesses of the events they refer to. Dr. Teschendorf says: "The

credibility of a writer clearly depends on the interval of time which

lies between him and the events which he describes. The farther the

narrator is removed from the facts which he lays before us the more his

claims to credibility are reduced in value." Presuming truthfulness in

intention for any writer, and his ability to comprehend the facts he is

narrating, and his freedom from a prejudice which may distort the

picture he intends to paint correctly with his pen: we might admit the

correctness of the passage we have quoted; but can these always be

presumed in the case of the authors of the Gospels? On the contrary, a

presumption in an exactly opposite direction may be fairly raised from

the fact that immediately after the Apostolic age the Christian world

was flooded with forged testimonies in favor of the biography of Jesus,

or in favor of his disciples.

A writer in the _Edinburgh Review_ observes: "To say nothing of such

acknowledged forgeries as the Apostolic constitutions and liturgies, and

the several spurious Gospels, the question of the genuineness of the

alleged remains of the Apostolic fathers, though often overlooked, is

very material. Any genuine remains of the 'Apostle' Barnabas, of Hermas,

the contemporary (Romans xvi, 14), and Clement, the highly commended and

gifted fellow laborer of St. Paul (Phil, iv, 3), could scarcely be

regarded as less sacred than those of Mark and Luke, of whom personally

we know less. It is purely a question of criticism. At the present day,

the critics best competent to determine it, have agreed in opinion, that

the extant writings ascribed to Barnabas and Hermas are wholly

spurious--the frauds of a later age. How much suspicion attaches to the

1st Epistle of Clement (for the fragment of the second is also generally

rejected) is manifest from the fact, that in modern times it has never

been allowed the place expressly assigned to it among the canonical

books prefixed to the celebrated Alexandrian MS, in which the only known

copy of it is included. It must not be forgotten that Ignatius expressly

lays claim to inspiration, that Irenaeus quotes Hermas as Scripture, and

Origen speaks of him as inspired, while Polycarp, in modestly

disclaiming to be put on a level with the Apostles, clearly implies

there would have been no essential distinction in the way of his being

ranked in the same order. But the question is, how are these pretensions

substantiated?" So far the _Edinburgh Review_, certainly not an Infidel

publication.

Eusebius, in his "Ecclesiastical History," admits the existence of many

spurious gospels and epistles, and some writings put forward by him as

genuine, such as the correspondence between Jesus and Agbaras, have

since been rejected as fictitious. It is not an unfair presumption from

this that many of the most early Christians considered the then existing

testimonies insufficient to prove the history of Jesus, and good reason

is certainly afforded for carefully examining the whole of the evidences

they have bequeathed us.

On p. 48, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Irenaeus, whose writings belong to the

extreme end of the second century, as though that Bishop must be taken

as vouching the four Gospels as we now have them. Yet, if the testimony

of Irenaeus be reliable ("Against Heresies," Book III, cap. i.) the

Gospel attributed to Matthew was believed to have been composed in

Hebrew, and Irenaeus says that as the Jews desired a Messiah of the

royal line of David, Matthew having the same desire to a yet greater

degree, strove to give them full satisfaction. This may account for some

of the genealogical curiosities to which we have drawn attention, but

hardly renders Matthew's Gospel more reliable; and how can the

suggestion that Matthew wrote in Hebrew prove that Matthew penned the

first Gospel, which has only existed in Greek? Irenaeus, too, flatly

contradicts the Gospels by declaring that the ministry of Jesus extended

over ten years and that Jesus lived to be fifty years of age ("Against

Heresies," Book II, cap. 22).

If the statement of Irenaeus ("Against Heresies," Book III, cap. xi)

that the fourth Gospel was written to refute the errors of Cerinthus and

Nicolaus, have any value, then the actual date of issue of the fourth

Gospel will be considerably after the others. Dr. Tischendorf's

statement that Polycarp has borne testimony to the Gospel of John is not

even supported by the quotation on which he relies. All that is said in

the passage quoted (Eusebius, "Ecc. Hist," Book V, cap. 20) is that

Irenaeus when he was a child heard Polycarp repeat from memory the

discourses of John and others concerning Jesus. If the Gospels had

existed in the time of Polycarp it would have been at least as easy to

have read them from the MS as to repeat them from memory. Dr.

Tischendorf might also have added that the letter to Florinus, whence he

takes the passage on which he relies, exists only in the writings of

Eusebius, to whom we are indebted for many pieces of Christian evidence

since abandoned as forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says: "Any testimony of

Polycarp in favor of the Gospel refers us back to the Evangelist

himself, for Polycarp, in speaking to Irenaeus of this Gospel as the

work of his master, St. John, must have learned from the lips of the

apostle himself, whether he was its author or not." Now, what evidence

is there that Polycarp ever said a single word as to the authorship of

the fourth Gospel, or of any Gospel, or that he even said that John had

penned a single word? In the Epistle to the Philippians (the only

writing attributed to Polycarp for which any genuine character is even

pretended), the Gospel of John is never mentioned, nor is there even a

single passage in the Epistle which can be identified with any passage

in the Gospel of John.

Surely Dr. Tischendorf forgot, in the eager desire to make his witnesses

bear good testimony, that the highest duty of an advocate is to make the

truth clear, not to put forward a pleasantly colored falsehood to

deceive the ignorant. It is not even true that Irenaeus ever pretends

that Polycarp in any way vouched our fourth Gospel as having been

written by John, and yet Dr. Tischendorf had the cool audacity to say

"there is nothing more damaging to the doubters of the authenticity of

St. John's Gospel than this testimony of St. Polycarp." Do the Religious

Tract Society regard English Infidels as so utterly ignorant that they

thus intentionally seek to suggest a falsehood, or are the Council of

the Religious Tract Society themselves unable to test the accuracy of

the statements put forward on their behalf by the able decipherer of

illegible parchments? It is too much to suspect the renowned Dr.

Constantine Tischendorf of ignorance, yet even the coarse English

sceptic regrets that the only other alternative will be to denounce him

as a theological charlatan.

Dr. Mosheim, writing on behalf of Christianity, says that the Epistle of

Polycarp to the Philippians is by some treated as genuine and by others

as spurious, and that it is no easy matter to decide. Many critics, of

no mean order, class it amongst the apostolic Christian forgeries, but

whether the Epistle be genuine or spurious, it contains no quotation

from, it makes no reference to, the Gospel of John.

To what is said of Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Clement of Alexandria, it

is enough to note that all these are after A.D. 150. Irenaeus may be put

177 to 200, Tertullian about 193, and Clement of Alexandria as

commencing the third century.

One of Dr. Tischendorf s most audacious flourishes is that (p. 49) with

reference to the Canon of Muratori, which we are told "enumerates the

books of the New Testament which, from the first, were considered

canonical and sacred," and which "was written a little after the age of

Pius I, about A.D. 170."

First the anonymous fragment contains books which were never accepted as

canonical; next, it is quite impossible to say when or by whom it was

written or what was its original language. Mura-tori, who discovered the

fragment in 1740, conjectured that it was written about the end of the

second or beginning of the third century, but it is noteworthy that

neither Eusebius nor any other of the ecclesiastical advocates of the

third, fourth, or fifth centuries, ever refers to it. It may be the

compilation of any monk at any date prior to 1740, and is utterly

valueless as evidence.

Dr. Tischendorfs style is well exemplified by the positive manner in

which he fixes the date A.D. 139 to the first apology of Justin,

although a critic so "learned" as the unrivalled Dr. Tischendorf could

not fail to be aware that more than one writer has supported the view

that the date of the first apology was not earlier than A.D. 145, and

others have contended for A.D. 150. The Benedictine editors of Justin's

works support the latter date. Dr. Kenn argues for A.D. 155-160. On page

63, the Religious Tract Society's champion appeals to the testimony of

Justin Martyr, but in order not to shock the devout while convincing the

profane, he omits to mention that more than half the writings once

attributed to Justin Martyr are now abandoned, as either of doubtful

character or actual forgeries, and that Justin's value as a witness is

considerably weakened by the fact that he quotes the acts of Pilate and

the Sybilline Oracles as though they were reliable evidence, when in

fact they are both admitted specimens of "a Christian forgery." But what

does Justin testify as to the Gospels? Does he say that Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John were their writers? On the contrary, not only do the

names of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John never occur as Evangelists in the

writings of Justin, but he actually mentions facts and sayings as to

Jesus, which are not found in either of the four Gospels. The very words

rendered Gospels only occur where they are strongly suspected to be

interpolated, Justin usually speaking of some writings which he calls

"memorials" or "memoirs of the Apostles."

Dr. Tischendorf urges that in the writings of Justin the Gospels are

placed side by side with the prophets, and that "this undoubtedly places

the Gospels in the list of canonical books." If this means that there is

any statement in Justin capable of being so construed, then Dr.

Tischendorf was untruthful. Justin does quote specifically the Sybilline

oracles, but never Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John. He quotes statements as

to Jesus, which may be found in the apocryphal Gospels, and which are

not found in ours, so that if the evidence of Justin Martyr be taken, it

certainly does not tend to prove, even in the smallest degree, that four

Gospels were specially regarded with reverence in his day. The Rev. W.

Sanday thinks that Justin did not assign an exclusive authority to our

Gospels, and that he made use also of other documents no longer extant

("Gospels in 2nd Century," p. 117).

On p. 94 it is stated that "as early as the time of Justin the

expression 'the Evangel' was applied to the four Gospels." This

statement by Dr. Tischendorf and its publication by the Religious Tract

Society call for the strongest condemnation. Nowhere in the writings of

Justin are the words "the Evangel" applied to the four Gospels.

Lardner only professes to discover two instances in which the word

anglicised by Tischendorf as "Evangel," occurs; [--Greek--] and

[--Greek--] the second being expressly pointed out by Schleiermacher as

an interpolation, and as an instance in which a marginal note has been

incorporated with the text; nor would one occurrence of such a word

prove that any book or books were so known by Justin, as the word is

merely a compound of good and [--Greek--] message; nor is there the

slightest foundation for the statement that in the time of Justin the

word Evangel was ever applied to designate the four Gospels now

attributed to Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Dr. Tischendorf (p. 46) admits that the "faith of the Church... would be

seriously compromised" if we do not find references to the Gospels in

writings between A.D. 100 and A.D. 150; and--while he does not directly

assert--he insinuates that in such writings the Gospels were "treated

with the greatest respect," or "even already treated as canonical and

sacred writings;" and he distinctly affirms that the Gospels "did see

the light" during the "Apostolic age," "and before the middle of the

second" century "our Gospels were held in the highest respect by the

Church," although for the affirmation, he neither has nor advances the

shadow of evidence.

The phrases, "Apostolic age" and "Apostolic fathers" denote the first

century of the Christian era, and those fathers who are supposed to have

flourished during that period, and who are supposed to have seen or

heard, or had the opportunity of seeing or hearing, either Jesus or some

one or more of the twelve Apostles. Barnabas, Clement, Hermas, Ignatius,

and Polycarp, are those whose names figure most familiarly in Christian

evidences as Apostolic fathers. But the evidence from these Apostolic

fathers is of a most unreliable character. Mosheim ("Ecclesiastical

History," cent. 1, cap. 2, sec. 3, 17) says that "the Apostolic history

is loaded with doubts, fables, and difficulties," and that not long

after Christ's ascension several histories were current of his life and

doctrines, full of "pious frauds and fabulous wonders." Amongst these

were "The Acts of Paul," "The Revelation of Peter," "The Gospel of

Peter," "The Gospel of Andrew," "The Gospel of John," "The Gospel of

James," "The Gospel of the Egyptians," etc. The attempts often made to

prove from the writings of Barnabas, Ignatius, etc., the prior existence

of the four Gospels, though specifically unnamed, by similarity of

phraseology in quotations, is a failure, even admitting for the moment

the genuineness of the Apostolic Scriptures, if the proof is intended to

carry the matter higher than that such and such statements were current

in some form or other, at the date the fathers wrote. As good an

argument might be made that some of the Gospel passages were adopted

from the fathers. The fathers occasionally quote, as from the mouth of

Jesus, words which are not found in any of our four Gospels, and make

reference to events not included in the Gospel narratives, clearly

evidencing that even if the four documents ascribed to Matthew, Mark,

Luke, and John, were in existence, they were not the only sources of

information from which some of the Apostolic fathers derived their

knowledge of Christianity, and evidencing also that the four Gospels had

attained no such specific superiority as to entitle them to special

mention by name.

Of the epistle attributed to Barnabas, which is supposed by its

supporters to have been written in the latter part of the first century,

which, Paley says, is probably genuine, which is classed by Eusebius as

spurious ("Ecclesiastical History," book iii, cap. 25), and which Dr.

Donaldson does not hesitate for one moment in refusing to ascribe to

Barnabas the Apostle ("Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. i, p. 100), it is only

necessary to say that so far from speaking of the Gospels with the

greatest respect, it does not mention by name any one of the four

Gospels. There are some passages in Barnabas which are nearly identical

in phraseology with some Gospel passages, and which it has been argued

are quotations from one or other of the four Gospels, but which may

equally be quotations from other Gospels, or from writings not in the

character of Gospels. There are also passages which are nearly identical

with several of the New Testament epistles, but even the great framer of

Christian evidences, Lardner, declares his conviction that none of these

last-mentioned passages are quotations, or even allusions, to the

Pauline or other epistolary writings. Barnabas makes many quotations

which clearly demonstrate that the four Gospels, if then in existence

and if he had access to them, could not have been his only source of

information as to the teachings of Jesus (e.g, cap. 7). "The Lord

enjoined that whosoever did not keep the fast should be put to death."

"He required the goats to be of goodly aspect and similar, that when

they see him coming they may be amazed by the likeness to the goat."

Says he, "those who wish to behold me and lay hold of my kingdom, must

through tribulation and suffering obtain me" (cap. 12). And the Lord

saith, "When a tree shall be bent down and again rise, and when blood

shall flow out of the wound." Will the Religious Tract Society point out

from which of the Gospels these are quoted?

Barnabas (cap. 10) says that Moses forbade the Jews to eat weasel flesh,

"because that animal conceives with the mouth," and forbad them to eat

the hyena because that animal annually changes its sex. This father

seems to have made a sort of _melange_ of some of the Pentateuchal

ordinances. He says (cap. 8) that the Heifer (mentioned in Numbers) was

a type of Jesus, that the _three_ (?) young men appointed to sprinkle,

denote Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, that _wool was put upon a stick_

because the kingdom of Jesus was founded upon the cross, and (cap. 9)

that the 318 men _circumcised_ by Abraham stood for Jesus crucified.

Barnabas also declared that the world was to come to an end in 6,000

years ("Freethinker's Text-Book," part ii, p. 268). In the Sinaitic

Bible, the Epistle of St. Barnabas has now, happily for misguided

Christians, been discovered in the original Greek. To quote the

inimitable style of Dr. Tischendorf, "while so much has been lost in the

course of centuries by the tooth of time and the carelessness of

ignorant monks, an invisible eye had watched over this treasure, and

when it was on the point of perishing in the fire, the Lord had decreed

its deliverance;" "while critics have generally been divided between

assigning it to the first or second decade of the second century, the

Sinaitic Bible, which has for the first time cleared up this question,

has led us to throw its composition as far back as the last decade of

the first century." A fine specimen of Christian evidence writing, cool

assertion without a particle of proof and without the slightest reason

given. How does the Siniatic MS, even if it be genuine, clear up the

question of the date of St. Barnabas's Epistle? Dr. Tischendorf does not

condescend to tell us what has led the Christian advocate to throw back

the date of its composition? We are left entirely in the dark: in fact,

what Dr. Tischendorf calls a "throw back," is if you look at Lardner

just the reverse. What does the epistle of Barnabas prove, even if it be

genuine? Barnabas quotes, by name, Moses and Daniel, but never Matthew,

Mark, Luke or John. Barnabas specifically refers to Deuteronomy and the

prophets, but never to either of the four Gospels.

There is an epistle attributed to Clement of Rome, which has been

preserved in a single MS only where it is coupled with another epistle

rejected as spurious. Dr. Donaldson ("Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. i, p.

3) declares that who the Clement was to whom these writings are ascribed

cannot with absolute certainty be determined. Both epistles stand on

equal authority; one is rejected by Christians, the other is received.

In this epistle while there is a distinct reference to an Epistle by

Paul to the Corinthians, there is no mention by name of the four

Gospels, nor do any of the words attributed by Clement to Jesus agree

for any complete quotation with anyone of the Gospels as we have them.

The Rev. W. Sanday is frank enough to concede "that Clement is not

quoting directly from our Gospels."

Is it probable that Clement would have mentioned a writing by Paul, and

yet have entirely ignored the four Gospels, if he had known that they

had then existed? And could they have easily existed in the Christian

world in his day without his knowledge? If anyone takes cap. xxv of this

epistle and sees the phoenix given as a historic fact, and as evidence

for the reality of the resurrection, he will be better able to

appreciate the value of this so-called epistle of Clement.

The letters of Ignatius referred to by Dr. Tischendorf are regarded by

Mosheim as laboring under many difficulties, and embarrassed with much

obscurity. Even Lardner, doing his best for such evidences, says, that

if we find matters in the Epistles inconsistent with the notion that

Ignatius was the writer, it is better to regard such passages as

interpolations, than to reject the Epistles entirely, especially in the

"scarcity" of such testimonies.

There are fifteen epistles of which eight are undisputedly forgeries. Of

the remaining seven there are two versions, a long and a short version,

one of which must be corrupt, both of which may be. These seven

epistles, however, are in no case to be accepted with certainty as those

of Ignatius. Dr. Cureton contends that only three still shorter epistles

are genuine ("Ante-Nicene Fathers," vol. i, pp. 137 to 143). The Rev. W.

Sanday treats the three short ones as probably genuine, waiving the

question as to the others ("Gospels in Second Century," p. 77, and see

preface to sixth edition "Supernatural Religion"). Ignatius, however,

even if he be the writer of the epistles attributed to him, never

mentions either of the four Gospels. In the nineteenth chapter of the

Epistle to the Ephesians, there is a statement made as to the birth and

death of Jesus, not to be found in either Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John.

If the testimony of the Ignatian Epistles is reliable, then it vouches

that in that early age there were actually Christians who denied the

death of Jesus. A statement as to Mary in cap. nineteen of the Epistle

to the Ephesians is not to be found in any portion of the Gospels. In

his Epistle to the Trallians, Ignatius, attacking those who denied the

real existence of Jesus, would have surely been glad to quote the

evidence of eye witnesses like Matthew and John, if such evidence had

existed in his day. In cap. eight of the Epistles to the Philadelphians,

Ignatius says, "I have heard of some who say: Unless I find it in the

archives I will not believe the Gospel. And when I said it is written,

they answered that remains to be proved." This is the most distinct

reference to any Christian writings, and how little does this support

Dr. Tischendorf's position. From which of our four Gospels could

Ignatius have taken the words, "I am not an incorporeal demon," which he

puts into the mouth of Jesus in cap. iii, the epistle to the Smyrnaeans?

Dr. Tischendorf does admit that the evidence of the Ignatian Epistles is

not of decisive value; might he not go farther and say, that as proof of

the four Gospels it is of no value at all?

On page 70, Dr. Tischendorf quotes Hippolytus without any qualification.

Surely the English Religious Tract Society might have remembered that

Dodwell says, that the name of Hippolytus had been so abused by

impostors, that it was not easy to distinguish any of his writings. That

Mill declares that, with one exception, the pieces extant under his name

are all spurious. That, except fragments in the writings of opponents,

the works of Hip-polytus are entirely lost. Yet the Religious Tract

Society permit testimony so tainted to be put forward under their

authority, to prove the truth of Christian history. The very work which

Dr. Tischendorf pretends to quote is not even mentioned by Eusebius, in

the list he gives of the writings of Hippolytus.

On page 94, Dr. Tischendorf states that Basilides, before A.D. 138, and

Valentinus, about A.D. 140, make use of three out of four Gospels, the

first using John and Luke, the second, Matthew, Luke, and John. What

words of either Basilides or Valentinus exist anywhere to justify this

reckless assertion? Was Dr. Tisch-endorf again presuming on the utter

ignorance of those who are likely to read his pamphlet? The Religious

Tract Society are responsible for Dr. Tischendorf s allegations, which

it is impossible to support with evidence.

The issue raised is not whether the followers of Basilides or the

followers of Valentinus may have used these gospels, but whether there

is a particle of evidence to justify Dr. Tischendorf s declaration, that

Basilides and Valentinus themselves used the above-named gospels. That

the four Gospels were well known during the second half of the first

century is what Dr. Tischendorf undertook to prove, and statements

attributed to Basilides and Valentinus, but which ought to be attributed

to their followers, will go but little way as such proof (see

"Supernatural Religion," vol. ii, pp. 41 to 63).

It is pleasant to find a grain of wheat in the bushel of Tischendorf

chaff. On page 98, and following pages, the erudite author applies

himself to get rid of the testimony of Papias, which was falsified and

put forward by Paley as of great importance. Paley says the authority of

Papias is complete; Tischendorf declares that Papias is in error. Paley

says Papias was a hearer of John, Tischendorf says he was not. We leave

the champions of the two great Christian evidence-mongers to settle the

matter as best they can. If, however, we are to accept Dr. Tischendorfs

declaration that the testimony of Papias is worthless, we get rid of the

chief link between Justin Martyr and the apostolic age. It pleases Dr.

Tischendorf to damage Papias, because that father is silent as to the

gospel of John; but the Religious Tract Society must not forget that in

thus clearing away the second-hand evidence of Papias, they have cut

away their only pretence for saying that any of the Gospels are

mentioned by name within 150 years of the date claimed for the birth of

Jesus. In referring to the lost work of Theophilus of Antioch, which Dr.

Tischendorf tells us was a kind of harmony of the Gospels, in which the

four narratives are moulded and fused into one, the learned Doctor

forgets to tell us that Jerome, whom he quotes as giving some account of

Theophilus, actually doubted whether the so-called commentary was really

from the pen of that writer. Lardner says: "Whether those commentaries

which St. Jerome quotes were really composed by Theophilus may be

doubted, since they were unknown to Eusebius, and were observed by

Jerome to differ in style and expression from his other works. However,

if they were not his, they were the work of some anonymous ancient." But

if they were the work of an anonymous ancient after Eusebius, what

becomes of Dr. Tischendorf s "as early as A.D. 170?"

Eusebius, who refers to Theophilus, and who speaks of his using the

Apocalypse, would have certainly gladly quoted the Bishop of Antioch's

"Commentary on the Four Gospels," if it had existed in his day. Nor is

it true that the references we have in Jerome to the work attributed to

Theophilus, justify the description given by Dr. Tischendorf, or even

the phrase of Jerome, "_qui quatuor Evangelistarum in unum opus dicta

compingens._" Theophilus seems, so far as it is possible to judge, to

have occupied himself not with a connected history of Jesus, or a

continuous discourse as to his doctrines, but rather with mystical and

allegorical elucidations of occasional passages, which ended, like many

pious commentaries on the Old or New Testament, in leaving the point

dealt with a little less clear with the Theophillian commentary than

without it. Dr. Tischendorf says that Theo-doret and Eusebius speak of

Tatian in the same way--that is, as though he had, like his Syrian

contemporary, composed a harmony of the four Gospels. This is also

inaccurate. Eusebius talks of Tatianus "having found a certain body and

collection of Gospels, I know not how," which collection Eusebius does

not appear even to have ever seen; and so far from the phrase in

Theodoret justifying Dr. Tischendorfs explanation, it would appear from

Theodoret that Tatian's Diatessaron was, in fact, a sort of spurious

gospel, "The Gospel of the Four" differing materially from our four

Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Neither Irenaeus, Clement of

Alexandria, or Jerome, who refer to other works of Tatian, make any

mention of this. Dr. Tischendorf might have added that Diapente, or "the

Gospel of the Five," has also been a title applied to this work of

Tatian.

In the third chapter of his essay, Dr. Tischendorf refers to apocryphal

writings "which bear on their front the names of Apostles" "used by

obscure writers to palm off" their forgeries. Dr. Tischendorf says that

these spurious books were composed "partly to embellish" scripture

narratives, and "partly to support false doctrine;" and he states that

in early times, the Church was not so well able to distinguish true

gospels from false ones, and that consequently some of the apocryphal

writings "were given a place they did not deserve." This statement of

the inability of the Church to judge correctly, tells as much against

the whole, as against any one or more of the early Christian writings,

and as it may be as fatal to the now received gospels as to those now

rejected, it deserves the most careful consideration. According to Dr.

Tischendorf, Justin Martyr falls into the category of those of the

Church who were "not so critical in distinguishing the true from the

false;" for Justin, says Tischendorf, treats the Gospel of St. James and

the Acts of Pilate, each as a fit source whence to derive materials for

the life of Jesus, and therefore must have regarded the Gospel of St.

James and the Acts of Pilate, as genuine and authentic writings; while

Dr. Tischendorf, wiser, and a greater critic than Justin, condemns the

Gospel of St. James as spurious, and calls the Acts of Pilate "a pious

fraud;" but if Dr. Tischendorf be correct in his statement that "Justin

made use of this Gospel" and quotes the "Acts of Pontius Pilate," then,

according to his own words, Justin did not know how to distinguish the

true from the false, and the whole force of his evidence previously used

by Dr. Tischendorf in aid of the four Gospels would have been seriously

diminished, even if it had been true, which it is not, that Justin

Martyr had borne any testimony on the subject.

Such, then, are the weapons, say the Religious Tract Society, by their

champion, "which we employ against unbelieving criticism." And what are

these weapons? We have shown in the preceding pages, the _suppressio

veri_ and the _suggestio falsi_ are amongst the weapons used. The

Religious Tract Society directors are parties to fabrication of

evidence, and they permit a learned charlatan to forward the cause of

Christ with craft and chicane. But even this is not enough; they need,

according to their pamphlet, "a new weapon;" they want "to find out the

very words the Apostles used." True believers have been in a state of

delusion; they were credulous enough to fancy that the authorised

version of the Scriptures tolerably faithfully represented God's

revelation to humankind. But no, says Dr. Tischendorf, it has been so

seriously modified in the copying and re-copying that it ought to be set

aside altogether, and a fresh text constructed. Glorious news this for

the Bible Society. Listen to it, Exeter Hall! Glad tidings to be issued

by the Paternoster Row saints! After spending hundreds of thousands of

pounds in giving away Bibles to soldiers, in placing them in hotels and

lodging-houses, and shipping them off to negroes and savages, it appears

that the wrong text has been sent through the world, the true version

being all the time in a waste-paper heap at Mount Sinai, watched over by

an "invisible eye." But, adds Dr. Tischendorf, "if you ask me whether

any popular version contains the original text, my answer is Yes and No.

I say Yes as far as concerns your soul's salvation." If these are enough

for the soul's salvation, why try to improve the matter? If we really

need the "full and clear light" of the Sinaitic Bible to show us "what

is the Word written by God," then most certainly our present Bible is

not believed by the Religious Tract Society to be the Word written by

God. The Christian advocates are in this dilemma: either the received

text is insufficient, or the proposed improvement is unnecessary. Dr.

Tischendorf says that "The Gospels, like the only begotten of the

Father, will endure as long as human nature itself," yet he says "there

is a great diversity among the texts," and that the Gospel in use

amongst the Ebionites and that used amongst the Nazarenes have been

"disfigured here and there with certain arbitrary changes." He admits,

moreover, that "in early times, when the Church was not so critical in

distinguishing the true from the false," spurious Gospels obtained a

credit which they did not deserve. And while arguing for the enduring

character of the Gospel, he requests you to set aside the received text

altogether, and to try to construct a new revelation by the aid of Dr.

Tischendorf s patent Sinaitic invention.

We congratulate the Religious Tract Society upon their manifesto, and on

the victory it secures them over German Rationalism and English

Infidelity. The Society's translator, in his introductory remarks,

declares that "circumstantial evidence when complete, and when every

link in the chain has been thoroughly tested, is as strong as direct

testimony;" and, adds the Society's penman, "This is the kind of

evidence which Dr. Tischendorf brings for the genuineness of our

Gospels." It would be difficult to imagine a more inaccurate description

of Dr. Tischendorf s work. Do we find the circumstantial evidence

carefully tested in the Doctor's boasting and curious narrative of his

journeys commenced on a pecuniary deficiency and culminating in much

cash? Do we find it in Dr. Tischendorf s concealment for fifteen years

of the place, watched over by an invisible eye, in which was hidden the

greatest biblical treasure in the world? Is the circumstantial evidence

shown in the sneers at Renan? or is each link in the chain tested by the

strange jumbling together of names and conjectures in the first chapter?

What tests are used in the cases of Valentinus and Basilides in the

second chapter? How is the circumstantial testimony aided by the

references in the third chapter to the Apocryphal Gospels? Is there a

pretence even of critical testing in the chapter devoted to the

apostolic fathers? All that Dr. Tisch-endorf has done is in effect to

declare that our authorised version of the New Testament is so

unreliable, that it ought to be got rid of altogether, and a new text

constructed. And this declaration is circulated by the Religious Tract

Society, which sends the sixpenny edition of the Gospel with one hand,

and in the other the shilling Tischendorf pamphlet, declaring that many

passages of the Religious Tract Society's New Testament have undergone

such serious modifications of meaning as to leave us in painful

uncertainty as to what was originally written.

The very latest contribution from orthodox sources to the study of the

Gospels, as contained in the authorised version, is to be found in the

very candid preface to the recently-issued revised version of the New

Testament, where the ordinary Bible receives a condemnation of the most

sweeping description. Here, on the high authority of the revisers, we

are told that, with regard to the Greek text, the translators of the

authorised version had for their guides "manuscripts of late date, few

in number and used with little critical skill." The revisers add what

Freethinkers have long maintained, and have been denounced from pulpits

for maintaining, viz., "that the commonly received text needed thorough

revision," and, what is even more important, they candidly avow that "it

is but recently that materials have been acquired for executing such a

work with even approximate completeness." So that not only "God's Word"

has admittedly for generations not been "God's Word" at all, but even

now, and with materials not formerly known, it has only been revised

with "approximate completeness," whatever those two words may mean. If

they have any significance at all, they must convey the belief of the

new and at present final revisers of the Gospel, that, even after all

their toil, they are not quite sure that god's revelation is quite

exactly rendered into English. So far as the ordinary authorised version

of the New Testament goes--and it is this, the law-recognised version

which is still used in administering oaths--we are told that the old

translators "used considerable freedom," and "studiously adopted a

variety of expressions which would now be deemed hardly consistent with

the requirements of faithful translation." This is a pleasant euphemism,

but a real and direct charge of dishonest translation by the authorised

translators. The new revisers add, with sadness, that "it cannot be

doubted that they (the translators of the authorised version) carried

this liberty too far, and that the studied avoidance of uniformity in

the rendering of the same words, even when occurring in the same

context, is one of the blemishes of their work." These blemishes the new

revisers think were increased by the fact that the translation of the

authorised version of the New Testament was assigned to two separate

companies, who never sat together, which "was beyond doubt the cause of

many inconsistencies," and, although there was a final supervision, the

new revisers add, most mournfully: "When it is remembered that the

supervision was completed in nine months, we may wonder that the

incongruities which remain are not more numerous."

Nor are the revisers by any means free from doubt and misgiving on their

own work. They had the "laborious task" of "deciding between the rival

claims of various readings which might properly affect the translation,"

and, as they tell us, "Textual criticism, as applied to the Greek New

Testament, forms a special study of much intricacy and difficulty, and

even now leaves room for considerable variety of opinion among competent

critics." Next they say: "the frequent inconsistencies in the authorised

version have caused us much embarrassment," and that there are "numerous

passages in the authorised version in which... the studied variety

adopted by the Translators of 1611 has produced a degree of

inconsistency that cannot be reconciled with the principle of

faithfulness." So little are the new revisers always certain as to what

god means that they provide "alternative readings in difficult or

debateable passages," and say "the notes of this last group are numerous

and largely in excess of those which were admitted by our predecessors."

And with reference to the pronouns and other words in italics we are

told that "some of these cases... are of singular intricacy, and make it

impossible to maintain rigid uniformity." The new revisers conclude by

declaring that "through our manifold experience of its abounding

difficulties we have felt more and more as we went onward that such a

work can never be accomplished by organised efforts of scholarship and

criticism unless assisted by divine help." Apparently the new revisers

are conscious that they did not receive this divine help in their

attempt at revision, for they go on: "We know full well that defects

must have their place in a work so long and so arduous as this which has

now come to an end. Blemishes and imperfections there are in the noble

translation which we have been called upon to revise; blemishes and

imperfections will assuredly be found in our own revision... we cannot

forget how often we have failed in expressing some finer shade of

meaning which we recognised in the original, how often idiom has stood

in the way of a perfect rendering, and how often the attempt to preserve

a familiar form of words, or even a familiar cadence, has only added

another perplexity to those which have already beset us."

MR. GLADSTONE IN REPLY TO COLONEL INGERSOLL ON CHRISTIANITY

IN the early days of the _National Reformer_ there was some reason to

believe that, despite his enormous work and his utterly differing views,

Mr. Gladstone was not unfrequently a reader of some of the papers

appearing in its columns. Later there was on one occasion a very

remarkable piece of evidence that, whilst considering as "questionable"

the literature issued from the publishing office of the late Mr. Austin

Holyoake, the veteran statesman did not pass it without notice. I do not

know if Mr. Gladstone has, during the last dozen years or so, had time

or inclination for similar acquaintance with the utterances of advanced

Freethought in this country--though his critique on a recent novel gives

affirmative probability--but it is clear that he watches heretical

utterances across the Atlantic; for in the _North American Review_ for

May, Mr. Gladstone--intervening in a correspondence going on between the

Rev. Dr. Field and Colonel R.G. Ingersoll--takes up his pen against the

eloquent American. I have hesitated very much as to publicly noticing

the North American Review article, for my personal reverence for Mr.

Gladstone is very great. I know how very far from one another we are on

questions of religion, and believing that the religious side or bent of

Mr. Gladstone's mind is stronger than any other feeling influencing him,

I can conceive that I may offend much in any criticism, however

respectfully worded. Yet I am sure that Mr. Gladstone's high position

entitles all he says to most attentive audience, and my duty to those in

the Freethought ranks who trust me compels me that I should tender some

words of comment. I venture to hope that the view of duty Mr Gladstone

has felt incumbent on him may prevail on my side to prevent any

appearance of impertinent interference.

It is not proposed to deal here with the points in controversy between

Dr. Field and Colonel Ingersoll, or with the ease as between Mr.

Gladstone and the Colonel. All that will be ventured on is a brief

comment, from my own standpoint, on some of the positions adopted by Mr.

Gladstone, writing as a Christian believer.

Early in the article, stating his own position, Mr. Gladstone says:

"Belief in divine guidance is not of necessity belief that such guidance

can never be frustrated by the laxity, the infirmity, the perversity of

man alike in the domain of action and the domain of thought." The whole

effect of this sentence is governed by the meaning attached by the

writer to the words "divine guidance." If the meaning intended to be

conveyed by the word "divine" includes the assumption of omnipotent

omniscience for the person or influence described as divine, and if

"guidance" means the intentional direction of the human by the divine to

a given end, then it is not easy to understand how this can be

intelligently believed, and yet that the same believer shall at the same

time believe that laxity or infirmity on the part of the individual

guided may "frustrate" the guidance, that is, may counteract it, nullify

it, or overcome it. That mental infirmity in the individual may be

irremediable by Deity is a proposition which challenges the assumed

omniscient omnipotence. That fallible human perversity may be more

powerful than omnipotent intent is a contradiction in terms. If the

affirmer of divine influence regarded the "divine" person as creator,

and the individuals guided as created results, then the infirmity, i.e.,

insufficient capacity of the created, must have been intentional on the

part of an omniscient, and the "guidance" would be illusory, in that the

"divine" must, even prior to creation, have planned and predesigned the

frustration of his own guiding effort by means of this infirmity.

Perversity on the part of the created individual, whether originated

purposely by the creator or developed in spite of the omnipotent guider,

such perversity, sufficient in activity to frustrate the active intent

of omnipotence, involves wholesale contradiction on the part of, or

utter confusion in the mind of, the believer. According to Mr.

Gladstone, the "divine" may guide the individual to think x, intending

the individual to think x, but knowing that the individual cannot (from

infirmity) think x, or will not (from perversity) think x, and therefore

the divine purpose is frustrated: the "divine," i.e., the omnipotent

being, is not only unable or unwilling to cure the infirmity, or to

overcome the perversity, but is actually the cause of the fatal

infirmity or perversity. That Mr. Gladstone honestly believes this is

manifest, but I venture to deny that such honest belief can be accepted

as the equivalent for accurate thought. It may be the equivalent for a

state of mind, which, existing amongst millions of human beings in

diverse races, is yet consistent with the wide prevalence of

ir-reconcileable faiths, and with faiths irreconcileable with fact.

Alike in thought and action, Mr. Gladstone believes the divine guidance

may be frustrated by human perversity, and thus possibly explains to

himself why it is that the Christian Governments of Europe have, in this

close of the nineteenth century, literally millions of men constantly

ready for the work of killing those who belong to the common family of

"Our Father which art in heaven."

Taking up the words of the questioning challenge by Colonel Ingersoll to

Dr. Field "What think you of Jephthah?" Mr. Gladstone writes: "I am

aware of no reason why any believer in Christianity should not be free

to canvass, regret, or condemn the act of Jephthah. So far as the

narration which details it is concerned, there is not a word of sanction

given to it more than to the falsehood of Abraham in Egypt, or of Jacob

and Rebecca in the matter of the hunting (Gen. xx, 1-8, and Gen. xxiii

[this is a misprint for xxvii]); or to the dissembling of St. Peter in

the case of the Judaising converts (Gal. ii, 11); I am aware of no color

of approval given to it elsewhere. But possibly the author of the reply

may have thought that he found such an approval in the famous eleventh

chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews, where the apostle, handling his

subject with a discernment and care very different to those of the

reply, writes thus (Heb. xi, 32): 'And what shall I say more? for the

time would fail me to tell of Gideon, of Barak, and of Samson, and of

Jephthah: of David also, and Samuel, and of the prophets.' Jephthah,

then, is distinctly held up to us by a canonical writer as an object of

praise. But of praise on what account? Why should the reply assume that

it is on account of the sacrifice of his child?"

I submit that to condemn the voluntary human sacrifice by Jephthah to

Jehovah, it is necessary to condemn the Bible presentment. A believer in

Christianity who condemned the act of Jephthah would in this necessarily

condemn also the devotion to the Lord of a human being and the carrying

out the vow by actual human sacrifice. But Leviticus xxvii, 28 and 29,

authorises such a vow, and enacts the result in precise language.

Kalisch, writing on this ("Leviticus," Part I, p. 385), says: "The fact

stands indisputable that human sacrifices offered to Jehovah were

possible among the Hebrews long after the time of Moses, without meeting

check or censure from the teachers or leaders of the nation."

Mr. Gladstone correctly enough maintains that the Bible gives no more

sanction to the conduct of Jephthah "than to the falsehood of Abraham in

Egypt." I quite admit that this is accurately stated, but God frequently

described himself as the "God of Abraham;" Abraham is pictured as being

in heaven; special promises were made to Abraham; and if these were not

as sanctioning his conduct, they nevertheless were marks of approbation

without blame of that conduct. In ordinary cases where reward is given

it is not unnaturally associated with the narrated conduct of the person

rewarded. Abraham and Jephthah stand on much the same footing on the

question of readiness to offer human sacrifice, except that in

Jephthah's case the initiative is with him. In the case of Abraham, the

initiative is from the Lord.

Mr. Gladstone, again, accurately says that there is no more sanction

given to the act of Jephthah than is given to the trick and deliberate

falsehood by which Jacob cheated blind Isaac out of the blessing

intended for Esau. That is so; but, according to the Genesis narrative,

God practically endorsed the fraud when he not only declared himself the

God of Jacob, but by his prophet declared that he loved Jacob and hated

Esau (Romans ix, 13). When the cheater is loved and the cheated hated,

it is scarcely straining the text to associate sanction of the act with

the love expressed for the the conduct of the person rewarded.

The narration as to Jephthah is of a distinct bargain between Jephthah

and the Lord, and a bargain made under spiritual influence, or, to use

Mr. Gladstone's words, under divine guidance. The text is explicit

(Judges xi, 29, 30, 31):

"Then the Spirit of the Lord came upon Jephthah, and he passed over

Gilead, and Manasseh, and passed over Mizpeh of Gilead, and from Mizpeh

of Gilead he passed over unto the chil-dren of Ammon. And Jephthah vowed

a vow unto the Lord, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the

children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever

cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace

from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the Lord's, and I will offer

it up for a burnt offering."

After this vow the Lord does deliver the children of Ammon into

Jephthah's hands, and Jephthah--who says: "I have opened my mouth unto

the Lord, and I cannot go back"--in return keeps his part of the

agreement, "and did with her according to his vow." And yet Mr.

Gladstone writes that there is no reason so far as he is aware, to

prevent a Christian from condemning this act of Jephthah. No reason,

except that the condemnation must include the condemning of the practice

of such vows generally, though specially enacted (Leviticus xxvii, 28,

29):

"Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the Lord

of all that he hath, both of man and beast, and of the field of his

possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy

unto the Lord. None devoted which shall be devoted of men, shall be

redeemed but shall surely be put to death"--

and must also involve the express condemnation of the particular bargain

assented to and completed alike by Jephthah and by "the Lord."

With the challenge as to Jephthah, Col. Ingersoll asked Dr. Field "What

of Abraham?" and this, too, is taken up by Mr. Gladstone who says of

Abraham: "He is not commended because, being a father, he made all the

preparations antecedent to plunging the knife into his son. He is

commended (as I read the text) because, having received a glorious

promise, a promise that his wife should be the mother of nations, and

that kings should be born of her (Genesis xvii, 6), and that by his seed

the blessings of redemption should be conveyed to man, and the

fulfilment of the promise being dependent solely upon the life of Isaac,

he was nevertheless willing that the chain of these promises should be

broken by the extinction of that life, because his faith assured him

that the Almighty would find the way to give effect to his own designs"

(Heb. xi, 16-19). But the text is surely clear on this. Abraham is

praised because he offered up Isaac, that is, that he was ready and

willing to offer a human sacrifice to "the Lord" similar to that which

was actually offered by Jephthah. Jephthah's sacrifice was voluntary;

Abraham's uncompleted sacrifice was undertaken in obedience to the

pressure of temptation by God.

Mr. Gladstone observes that "the facts... are grave and startling," and

he might well write thus if he had before him any record of the case of

a man tried in the United States for the murder of his son. The man

imagined and believed, as Abraham is stated to have imagined and

believed, that he heard God command him to kill his son as a sacrifice;

the man obeyed what he believed to be the divine command. While Abraham

only "took the knife to slay his son," the American actually killed his

child. On the trial the jury found that the man was insane; that the

imagined divine command was delusion; that what the man claimed to be an

act of faith in God was an act of human insanity. Mr. Gladstone says

that Abraham's faith "may have been qualified by a reserve of hope that

God would interpose before the final act," that is, that the

interposition would come before he, like Jephthah, actually killed his

child as a human sacrifice to the Deity who tempted him. The Bible text

gives no support to Mr. Gladstone's qualifying theory. Genesis xxii, 1,

2, says:

"God did tempt Abraham.... And he said, Take now thy son, thine only son

Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer

him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will

tell thee of."

Without hesitation, Abraham, according to the narrative, takes his son

to the place, binds him to the wood, and deliberately prepares to carry

out the sacrifice. Abraham either deceives the men (verse 5) and

misleads his son (verses 7 and 8), or Abraham did not believe in the

consummation of the sacrifice, and in the latter case the faith for

which he is praised would be no more than hypocritic pretence. Nay, the

text expressly represents God as affirming that Abraham was ready to

carry out the sacrifice of his son (verse 16):

"By myself have I sworn, saith the Lord, for because thou hast done this

thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son."

If Abraham only offered to kill his son as a sacrifice with the mental

qualification that the offer would not be accepted, and that the

sacrifice would not be exacted, then the Lord must have been misled into

the swearing recited in the text.

Evidently Mr. Gladstone, himself a humane man and loving father, is not

quite at ease in dealing with this part of Abraham's history. He says

(1) "that the narrative does not supply us with a complete statement of

particulars;" (2) that "the command was addressed to Abraham under

conditions essentially different from those which now determine for us

the limits of moral obligations;" (3) "that the estimate of human life

at the time was different;" (4)

that "the position of the father in the family was different: its

members were regarded as in some sense his property." I rejoin (1) that

to read into the text vital words of explanation which are not

specifically expressed in the "divine revelation"--and to so read

because without these words the text is incredible--is perilously near

downright infidelity. And that, given the incompleteness of Genesis, the

added explanation must vary with the intellect, training, and temper of

the expositor, e.g. Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Spurgeon, or the man who killed

his child in America, would fill up each imagined hiatus in very diverse

fashions. (2) Mr. Gladstone's argument can only be maintainable on the

assumption that the limits of moral obligation were in the time of

Abraham differently determined--for or by, "the Lord"--from such limits

today, that is, that the "divine guide" is not immutable. (3) That to

render this argument permissible on the part of a believer in

Christianity it must be assumed that "the Lord" then estimated the value

of human life differently from the manner in which he now would estimate

it, because--unless "the Lord" was simply deceiving Abraham in the

original direction and the subsequent swearing--"the Lord" concurred in

and approved the proposed sacrifice by Abraham; as he also afterwards

concurred in and approved the actual sacrifice by Jephthah. (4) [nvolves

the assumption that the morality of family relation is now admittedly

higher under modern civilisation than when specially regulated by

"divine guidance."

3 "Capital and Wages," p. 19.

4 "Perversion of Scotland," p. 197.

Mr. Gladstone grants that "there is every reason to suppose that around

Abraham in 'the land Moriah,' the practice of human sacrifice as an act

of religion was in full vigor," and he does not fall into the error of

ordinary Biblical apologists in pretending that the practice of human

sacrifice was confined to "false "religions.

Mr. Gladstone fairly states that the command received by Abraham to

offer his son Isaac as a human sacrifice was not only "obviously

inconsistent with the promises which had preceded," but "was also

inconsistent with the morality acknowledged in later times." I submit

that this statement is really a condemnation by Mr. Gladstone of the

divine command, in that it is a declaration that such a command

would--in times later than Abraham, in fact, in our own times--be an

immoral command. Here there ought not to be any question raised of

changed conditions, for the command is from "the Lord," that is, from

the assumed immutable, omniscient Omnipotent. Mr. Gladstone, it is true,

contends that "though the law of moral action is the same everywhere and

always, it is variously applicable to the human being, as we know from

experience; and its first form is that of simple obedience to a superior

whom there is every ground to trust." As in the article Mr. Gladstone

has given no definition of what he means by morality, I have no right to

go beyond his statement. Following Bentham and Mill, I should personally

maintain the utilitarian definition of morality, i.e., "that that action

is moral which is for the greatest good of the greatest number with the

least injury to any." But this would not in any fashion fit in with Mr.

Gladstone's contention, which in the case of a Russian, would make the

act moral which is of simple obedience to the Czar, even though that act

happened to be the knouting of a delicate woman; or in the case of a

Roman Catholic would declare the act to be moral which was performed in

simple obedience to the Pope, even though it were the applying the fire

to the faggots piled round Giordano Bruno; or in the case of an English

sailor would make the act moral done in obedience to the commander of

his ship, even though it should be the placing a destructive torpedo in

contact with a crowded vessel of an enemy; or in the case of an Irish

constable, though the act should be the shooting, on the command of his

superior, from the window of a Mitchelstown barrack, even though the

result was the murder of an unoffending old man.

A FEW WORDS ON THE CHRISTIANS' CREED

TO THE REV. J.G. PACKER, A.M, INCUMBERER OF ST. PETER'S, HACKNEY ROAD

SIR,--Had the misfortunes which I owe to your officious interference

been less than they are, and personal feeling left any place in my mind

for deliberation or for inquiry in selecting a proper person to whom to

dedicate these few remarks, I should have found myself directed, by many

considerations, to the person of the Incumberer of St. Peter's, Hackney

Road. A life spent in division from part of your flock, and in crushing

those whom you could not answer, may well entitle you to the respect of

all true bigots. Hoping that you will be honoured as you deserve,

I am, Reverend Sir,

Yours truly,

C. BRADLAUGH

THE Creed of the Christian is what I proceed to consider, and I shall

take for consideration the one which we have given us in the Communion

Service of the Church of England. It begins thus: "I believe in one God,

the Father, Almighty." Here is a declaration of belief in the unity of

God. How far this declaration is carried out in the latter parts of the

creed, is a matter for further investigation; but we will now take the

next sentence: "Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and

invisible." Here, in the two sentences, we have the declaration of

belief in a power that has created the universe. Now, the very term

"belief" implies that the thing is not known; for when we have attained

knowledge, we are beyond mere belief. As the believers are in doubt

about the existence of a creator, I will endeavor to investigate the

probability of there being such an existence. If you put any inquiries

to a Christian as to the creation, he will tell you that God made matter

out of nothing. If you ask him who or what God is, he will tell you that

God is quite incomprehensible. Failing to get any other information on

this point, you ask him, but how could something be produced from

nothing? to which, if he is a pious man, he will reply, that, too, is

incomprehensible; and also add, that it is one of those mysteries of

religion that we must not attempt to reason upon. Having satisfied

ourselves that the Christian can give us no information, beyond that

which is contained in a book which he calls a revelation from God, we

look to this book to ascertain, if we can, something further relating to

this incomprehensibility. We, however, now find ourselves in a worse

position than we were before, for we are told in one text that God is

all-powerful; in another text (Judges i, 19) we are told that he is not.

In one text we are told that God is unchangeable; and in another we are

told that God grieves and repeats (Gen. vi, 6). In another that he gets

in a passion, and marches through the land in indignation, and thrashes

the heathen in his anger (Habakkuk iii, 12). I might fill a volume with

these beautiful specimens of the character of the God of the Christian.

However, as the Bible quite supports God's character for

incomprehensibility, I think we need not doubt that thus far the

Christian is right. But, as this is not the sort of evidence that a

reasonable man will be satisfied with, and as the burden of proof lies

upon the man who declares or makes the assertion, I think all must come

to the conclusion that the assertion, not being supported by evidence,

must, as a matter of necessity, fall to the ground.

The next passage runs thus: "And in our Lord Jesus Christ, the only

begotten Son of God: begotten of his Father before all the worlds." Here

is the declaration of a belief (which, however little it will bear

examination, we will take for the present) in a being whom we should

take from the word Son to be a personage inferior to God the Father,

especially as in John (xiv, 28), Jesus is represented saying "the Father

is greater than I;" but such is not the case, for the next words, "God

of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God," show that the Christian

makes Jesus not only to be equal, but to be superior to God the Father,

for he tells us that Jesus is God of Gods, and very God of very God. Now

if God the Father is incomprehensible, I can assure you that the God and

very God of God the Father appears to me to be doubly so. The belief

then proceeds, "begotten, not made, being of one substance with the

Father, by whom all things were made." This is a most important

declaration, for it clearly proves that the Christian believes in a

material and substantial God, or rather material and substantial Gods,

for he tells us that God the Father and God the Son are both of the same

substance. This belief in a material deity upsets the prior declaration

of the creation or production of matter from nothing, for if the Gods or

God of the Christians are or is eternal, and as they, or he, are or is

clearly material, so matter must be eternal, and could never have been

created. The belief next proceeds, "Who for us men and for our salvation

came own from heaven." This coming down and ascending up to heaven

clearly proves that the Christian considers that the earth is a kind of

flat surface with heaven above, and that God lives up in heaven, and

that he sometimes has come down to see us and gone up again after the

visit. But we are told that he came for our salvation. Now to be a

salvation there must be a fall. Of course there must, cries the exulting

Christian; look to Genesis and see the account of the fall of Adam. We

do look to Genesis, and we find that somebody called Yeue Alehim (whom

our translators make Lord God, but for what reason I am at a loss), has

placed Adam and Eve in a garden with a command not to eat certain fruit,

and that this Lord God, to make his command stronger, backs it with a

lie, for he tells Adam and Eve that in the day that they eat of it they

shall surely die, which the sequel proves not to be true, as they did

not die, but one of them lived 930 years after he had broken the

command. While Adam and Eve are in this garden a cunning serpent, whom

the Lord God also has made, tempts Eve, and they eat of the fruit of the

tree, and their eyes are opened, and they gain a knowledge of good and

evil. Now the Lord God seems to be very much like the bigoted parsons of

the present day, for when he finds out what Adam and Eve have done he

gets in a passion and swears at them, and curses Adam and his wife and

the serpent; and not satisfied with this, he curses the land too, just

as if the land had had some share in the crime.

This is a summary of the account of the Fall contained in the Bible.

Because Adam and Eve had been guilty of the horrible crime of eating of

the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, that is they

learnt to think and reason for themselves, God Almighty found it

necessary to damn them; and depend upon it, reader, whoever you may be,

that when you are guilty of the crime of thinking, speaking, and acting

for yourself in religious matters, God's vicegerents on earth, the

black-coated, white-neckerchiefed, strait-haired, pious psalm-singing

gentry, will do their best to crush you and damn you by every means in

their power. They will calumniate you as they have done Thomas Paine and

the rest of those brave men who have been courageous enough to strive

for civil and religious liberty.

But I fear I am guilty of digression, and therefore I will take you back

to the account of the Fall. Adam having been cursed, our pastors pretend

that it was necessary that there should be a redemption--for they have

such a good opinion of their God, that although they tell us that

without God's help we could not live and move, they think God would damn

the whole earth because one man [ate] an apple which, according to their

own account, he could not have done if God had not permitted him;

therefore, to use the words of Richard Carlile, they give us the

horrible picture of "a merciful God sacrificing a good and pure God to

appease the vengeance of a jealous and revengeful God."

I will now leave this to the consideration of the reader, and take the

next passage, which runs thus: "And was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of

the Virgin Mary, and was made man." I can scarcely imagine that any of

the Christians ever give this belief a thought, as, parrot-like, they

repeat it after their leader in the pulpit, for if they did think they

must be aware that they are uttering the most ridiculous and absurd

statements respecting their deity. The doctrine of the incarnation,

however, is common to the Hindoos; and as their religion is much older

than Christianity, I suppose they will admit that the Hindoos did not

derive their doctrine from the Christian, and also that it seems

extremely probable that the Christians derived their doctrine of the

incarnation from the Hindoos. This would go very far towards identifying

Christianity with Paganism; and therefore the devout Christian will

shudder at the thought, and again tell you that is a mystery that must

not be inquired into. But the absurdities contained in the idea of an

omnipotent and infinite God becoming a weak and finite man, must, I

think, be apparent to all.

The creed then reads: "And was crucified, also, for us, under Pontius

Pilate. He suffered, and was buried." The idea of a Very God of Very God

_suffering_ and being buried! "And the third day he rose again according

to the scriptures." Now, unless there were other scriptures besides

those which we possess, Jesus did not rise according to the scriptures;

for the scriptures say, that as Jonah was three days and three nights in

the belly of the whale, so shall the Son of Man be three days and three

nights in the heart of the earth. But Jesus was not three days and three

nights in the heart of the earth, for he was crucified in the course of

Friday, and was out of the grave before dawn on Sunday--being only one

clear day and two nights. So much for being according to the scriptures.

It then proceeds: "And ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right

hand of the Father." We have been told that there is only one step from

the sublime to the ridiculous, and I think that this fully proves the

truth of the observation, for one moment we are told of an infinite God,

and the next of two infinite Gods, sitting beside each other in a finite

place called heaven. But this is not the whole of the absurdity; for the

idea of ascension into heaven proves what I have before noticed with

regard to the absurd ideas of heaven and earth contained in this creed.

The creed proceeds: "And he shall come again with glory to judge both

the quick and the dead: whose kingdom shall have no end." This involves

the belief of the existence in a future state, and, as it is impossible

to prove a negative to the question, I shall put the following

interrogatories for the believer's consideration. In what state do you

expect man to exist with a knowledge of his identity after death? He

cannot exist in a material state, for the matter of which he was

composed has been dispersed, and now forms other bodies, and thus the

organisation is totally destroyed. You cannot tell me that the atoms of

which that man was composed will reunite, because that would presuppose

the existence of a power possessing the capability of the creation of

matter in the same state with the same knowledge of personal identity;

besides which, the matter of which Alexander the Great was composed may

now be in your body, and thus either you or poor Alexander would have to

go on short commons at the day of judgment. And with regard to anything

that may be said as to our existence in an immaterial state, I only ask

the believer to produce some proof of it, for as yet we have no proof,

and therefore have nothing to answer.

The creed proceeds: "And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver

of Life: who proceedeth from the Father and Son." On this declaration I

have not much to say, except to point out the absurdity of it; for a

dissertation on the term Holy Ghost would be too long for my pages. If

God the Father and God the Son are living beings, then God the Holy

Ghost is not the Lord and Giver of Life; for he proceeds from them, and

they were before him. But if God the Holy Ghost is the Lord and Giver of

Life, then, till he came into existence, God Almighty and his Son must

have been without life. More than this, Jesus is said to be the son of

the Virgin Mary by the Holy Ghost; now, if the Holy Ghost proceeds from

Jesus first, it seems rather strange that Jesus should have proceeded

from the Holy Ghost afterwards. The "Ecce Homo" suggests that the

_aggelos_, or messenger who represented the Holy Ghost, might have been

a _young man_.

But to return to our subject. It then proceeds: "Who, with the Father

and the Son together, is worshipped and glorified: who spake by the

prophets." Now it happens that there are a number of Lords who spake by

the prophets--such as _Yeue or Yehovah, Alehim, El Sheddi_, and

others--but not one Holy Ghost: so that the Bible gives the lie to the

belief, unless the Holy Ghost was the lying spirit in the case of Ahab,

and I am afraid that that would not tell much to the credit of the Holy

(or unholy) Ghost.

"And I believe in one catholic and apostolic church." Setting aside the

word apostolic, this is the only good part in the belief; for depend

upon it readers, that till there is an universality of mind and action

throughout the world in one direction, we never shall have true

happiness. Therefore I praise the belief in a catholic or universal

church or community; but the objectionable word apostolic pulls me down

from the Utopia to which I had begun to soar, for that word spoils all.

With the word apostle are strangely mingled together some ideas of

Peter, the Pope, the Inquisition, thumbscrews, racks, stakes, and other

adjuncts to an apostolic church.

"I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins." Only think,

readers, the church set at loggerheads, and nearly L100,000 spent on the

last nine words. A bishop, with all the courage imaginable, speaking

what the _Times_ tells him may cost him his mitre, and then

excommunicating the whole who disagree with him, the _Times_ of course

included, on account of these words! I think after this we had better

read the passage again. What is baptism? Answer: Saying long prayers

over a baby in long clothes, till you wake it, and then sprinkling water

on it till you make it cry! What is remission of sins? Answer: Don't

know. Now I believe the grand question in dispute is whether the grace

comes before the baptism or at it, or after it, or whether it comes at

all; and to settle this question they have employed themselves in

worrying one another with threats, protests, and prohibitions, to the

benefit of the lawyers and us poor inquirers. I say our benefit, too,

for we are told that when rogues fall out honest men get their own. What

absurdity is contained in the idea that the baptising of a child with

water saved it from being damned for sins that it never committed! or,

how still more absurd is the idea that the child would be damned if it

were not baptised at all; yet this doctrine is taught and inculcated by

the Creed of the Church of England. The creed proceeds: "I look for the

resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come." Together

with this resurrection are associated the ideas that we shall be brought

before the bar of God and give an account of our deeds, and that the bad

shall be sent to hell and the good to heaven. Now we are told that hell

is a lake of brimstone and fire; if that is the case, I deny that there

can be eternal punishment, for science proves that there is not enough

brimstone in any finite space to burn one man for ever, let alone

several millions: and with regard to heaven, if I am to go there I hope

it will not be near the planet Uranus, for I should feel too cold; or

near the sun, for then I should feel too hot, and should not be very

happy. However, take it at the worst, we freethinkers should be better

off than the believer, for bad as the believer makes his God, he surely

could never be unjust enough to send me to hell for speaking what I

believed to be the truth.

Taking the Creed as a whole, it is one of the most ridiculous

declarations of faith imaginable, for the believer declares a belief in

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. And how are these pictured in Scripture?

"The Father is somewhere in heaven, the Son sits at his right hand, and

the Holy Ghost flies about in a bodily shape like a dove." What a

curious picture to present to any reasonable man--a Father begets a Son

from nothing, and a dove proceeds from the two of them. I shall say no

more on this disgusting part of Christianity--disgusting because so many

believe all that is told them by a man who possesses the same powers of

comprehension as themselves, and who has a position to maintain in the

world--I mean the priest. My blood runs cold to think of the mischief

that has been done by those men called priests; they are the bane of

society, for they rule the mass of society _vi et armis_ and they rule

it wrongfully; they do not give it a chance of obtaining a mouthful of

intellectual food without steeping it in the poison of their

superstitious dogmas, and till we take the antidote of free discussion

we shall never be free. But alas for reform! there are strong bulwarks

of faith and prejudice to be attacked and pulled down before that

antidote can fully counteract the debasing effects of superstition on

the mind and action of man.

However, Christian, before concluding, I will give you a summary of your

most absurd Creed. You believe in God the Father who is eternal, and in

God the Son who is eternal too. You believe that the Holy Ghost is the

father of Jesus, and that Jesus is the son of God the Father. You

believe that the Holy Ghost is a _material spirit_, and that he has made

himself manifest in two forms, namely, a dove or pigeon, and a cloven

tongue of fire (the latter would be no bad emblem, were he the identical

lying spirit). You believe that a finite woman, who was a virgin, gave

birth to an infinite God, and yet that that God was a man. You believe

that Jesus went down into hell and stopped on his visit three days; but,

Christian, if it were true, do you think that the devil would have been

unwise enough to let his bitterest enemy out after he had got him so

nicely in his power? You believe that the Holy Ghost spoke by the

prophets. To do that he must have had foreknowledge, and we must have

been predestined to do certain acts; and yet you believe that we are

free, and shall be punished or rewarded according to our actions and

faith. You believe that God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost, are three

separate persons, and yet that they are one.

You who are Papists believe that there are three Gods in one and one in

three, and that yours is the true Church, and that the Pope is the head

of the church, and the representative of God on earth. You who are

Churchmen hold the same trinity, but make Victoria, by the grace of God,

queen defender of the faith, nominal Pope of your church, and the

Archbishops of Canterbury and York the actual popes. You who are

Wesleyan elect John Wesley to the papal dignity, and so on with the

rest.

I hope that all who profess the creed will look around and see the

present theological panic. The Wesleyans are divided by the "Fly Sheets"

into two parties, and are attacking one another most vigorously. The

Church of England is divided by Goreham, and the bishops are

excommunicating one another. And lastly, the Pope is at a discount in

the very seat of his empire, and Free-thought is slowly but steadily

increasing.

To those readers who approve of this, I beg leave to ask their

assistance in the work of progress by their acting as well as talking

among their fellow-men. To those who disapprove, I say, "Answer it."

----