Ancient Faiths And Modern Part 27

To return to the idea which is enunciated at the early part of this essay, let us contemplate what would be, or rather, what ought to be, the duty of an honest man, whose aim is to defend the faith which he professes, and to prove that the book which he reveres is deserving of his confidence.

It is probable that, if a merchant had in his possession a bill, or promissory note, which some person had examined carefully, and p.r.o.nounced to be a forgery, he would never think of parading it before his customers as a valid "a.s.set." Yet, as I write the sentence, memory recalls to my mind that traders have done this very thing, and have counted what they ought to have known were bad debts, or fraudulent bills of exchange, amongst their securities for money; and that, when the parties so acting have become bankrupt, their proceedings have been severely punished by the authorities, as being dishonest and fraudulent.

The a.n.a.logy is an useful one, inasmuch as it enables me to ask the question--"Ought the morality of a 'divine' to be inferior to that practised by a merchant or banker?" Still further, let us inquire whether we should have a high opinion of a trader, who endeavoured to palm off upon us, as a genuine diamond, an article which had been publicly declared to be a bit of "paste," and whether we should be satisfied with his excuse--"I believe everything is a gem that goes by the name of a precious stone."

In the course of this and our preceding volumes we have, as plainly as words could express our meaning, enunciated our conclusions upon certain Biblical difficulties. We have, at least, endeavoured to be honest; we have not misrepresented those with whose opinions we differ, nor have we tried to shirk any question, however difficult it may have been. We claim a corresponding degree of honesty from those who profess to be authorised guides--and certainly are in the position at present of national leaders in religion.

We are not like an unfortunate clerk in "holy orders," who can be silenced by law. We are, on the contrary, a stranger knight who comes to a tourney, and claims the right to combat with the most redoubtable of the champions of their court and kingdom. Still further, we a.s.sume the power to write those down as cowards who, upon any pretence whatever, decline to compete in the lists with us.

In the days of chivalry there was not a knight who would not have been regarded as "craven," if he declined a combat because his challenger did not speak or write French correctly, or had a speck of rust on his armour, a dint in his shield, or a hole in his breastplate. Yet, in these degenerate days, we see that poltroons refuse to entertain the arguments of a writer who, from any cause whatever, appears to be inaccurate in Hebrew points, or consonants, or Greek accents, or transliteration. For ourselves, we regard every excuse which is framed to avoid meeting a fairly stated argument as a proof of weakness, and when it is uttered by a professional champion, as an act of cowardice.

When such champions are paid by a state to uphold the honour of their country, to avoid a challenge by evasion is dishonesty. There was, however, in knightly days, some established law of chivalry that no champion need fight a "squire" or "varlet;" but, on the other hand, no n.o.bleman could refuse to enter the lists on the plea that his challenger had a different faith to his own. Combats between Christians and Paynim were common. Consequently, we cannot regard a bishop justified in declining a fair challenge, because he is invited to enter the lists by an "Infidel."

Considering myself as an university graduate and an English gentleman, ent.i.tled to give a literary challenge, I make no scruple to enter the lists, and invite champions to break a lance with me in favour of their patron saint or lady.

I a.s.sert that their tutelary saints--Adam, Abraham, David, Moses, Solomon, and the prophets, are imaginary beings, or, where real, were not as worthy as they are supposed to have been. I defy scholars to prove that the Israelites were ever, as a body, in Egypt; that they were delivered therefrom by Moses; that the people wandered during forty years in "the desert;" received a code of laws from Jehovah on Sinai; and were, in any sense whatever of the words, "the chosen people of G.o.d."

I a.s.sert that the whole history of the Old Testament is untrue, with the exception of a few parts which tell of unimportant events--e.g., it is probable that the Jews fought with their neighbours, as the Swiss have done in modern days--but I do not believe the tale about Samson any more than that of William Tell.

I a.s.sert that there is not a single true prophecy in the whole Bible, which can be proved to have been written before the event to which it is a.s.sumed to point, or which is superior, in any way, to the "oracles"

delivered in various ancient lands.

I a.s.sert that the whole of what, is called the Mosaic law had no existence in the days of David, Solomon, and the early Hebrew chieftains--or kings--if they are thought to deserve the t.i.tle.

Here there is no room for evasion--the issue is clear; the cause to be adjudged by combat is unmistakable. As the weapons on both sides must necessarily be literary--the pen, and not lance or spear, it is advisable to say a few words thereupon. In argument I do not recognize that style of logic which considers that the words "it may be" are equal to "it is."

I am induced to make this remark, because in theological works, the two forms are constantly used as if they were identical. Many years ago, a near relative, staying in my house, was preparing for ordination in the Church of England, and amongst other hooks, had a certain work of the late Cardinal Wiseman, for perusal--with the intention of collecting materials for refuting it. He told me that the Papal Archbishop was too strong for him, and requested my aid. As a result, I became familiar, not only with many dogmatic writings of the Roman, but also of the Anglican, Church. All of them had, in my estimation, the same logical fault. Their authors imagined that any given point is proved when it can be shown that the occurrence in question _may_ have happened. At a subsequent period I discovered that this was the prevalent argument amongst writers in my own profession. It has, indeed, been supposed generally, that success in proving an opponent to be wrong, is the same as demonstrating your own propositions to be right.

The writers in the _Speaker's Commentary_ upon the Bible have not advanced beyond this. A thousand such commonplaces as fill its pages, are worthless to the philosophical inquirer, and I no more regard them, than a knight would a targe and lance made of barley-sugar.

My challenge, however, is not confined to the subject of the Old Testament; I affirm that the New Testament is equally untrue--although not to the same degree. Yet, as in the latter, there are not so many a.s.serted facts, there cannot be so many points for cavil. To be more specific: I a.s.sert that the history of Jesus was framed upon that of Sakya Muni, and very probably at Alexandria, long after the death of the son of Mary. I do not deny the existence of Jesus; but I a.s.sert that every miracle which is told respecting him--and the narrative of his miraculous conception, and of the marvels occurring at his birth, have no foundation in fact.

It is unnecessary to repeat what I have already said upon such points as "original sin," "the fall of man," and "the need of a Saviour."

In what I now say or write, I am perfectly honest. I have not been paid to preach a certain doctrine, whether my understanding a.s.sents to it or not I affirm, moreover, that the comfort in which I live, is wholly unbroken by any fears for the future; and that I look back upon the period when my days and nights were made wretched by superst.i.tion, and rejoice that I am emanc.i.p.ated from the shackles of Ecclesiastics. "The Church," and every sect of it, which is known in Christendom, is, in my opinion, unfit to be trusted by thoughtful human beings. Its votaries are only happy in proportion to their power of forgetting its doctrines, or explaining them away. Yet all, as I said in the first chapter of my second volume, agree "to make believe," and by dint of persistently doing so, end in persuading themselves that they are clothed with lovely garments--which have no existence, save in the opinion of the wearer.

My whole life has been pa.s.sed amongst religionists of more or less piety. I have known them in public and in private, in their connection with the world, and their relations with wife, children, and servants. I am also familiar with some who are avowed free-thinkers. As an impartial judge, and certainly having the desire to be an honest one, I declare that the so-called irreligion or infidelity of the latter makes them better citizens of the world, better fathers of a family, and better priests to those who are struggling with misfortune, than the religion--orthodox or non-conformist--of the former induces them to become.

If there were in reality, as there was once in fable, a domain in which every one was constrained to speak the truth; and if, still farther, one could carry thereto every religionist, and inquire into his belief, I feel sure that those whom the professed Christians affect to despise as infidels, would be the only ones who would be found faithful in private, to the principles which they profess in public. If, for an example, the question were put to both "What is honesty?" the answer of the free-thinkers would be--"Doing to others, in every position of life, that which you would wish others to do to you;" the reply of the dogmatic would be the same, with the important addition--"Except in matters of faith."

My readers must not imagine that I am hasty or unscrupulous in what is pa.s.sing from my mind to my pen. There never was a time in which I have felt more deeply that my duty, as an independent man, is to speak plainly. On the other hand, there is not one single religionist of my acquaintance, to whom the words--"Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are of" (Luke ix. 55)--do not apply.

On the shelves of my library are books written by almost all cla.s.ses of authors, and in many different languages. It has been a self-enforced duty to compare their contents, and to endeavour, still further, to elicit from those who are not writers, information which may a.s.sist me in forming a correct idea upon any particular point. Up to the present time I have not found one single work, which has relation to the religion of opponents, and is written by a parson, thoroughly trustworthy or honest Everyone is guilty, either of the _suppressio veri_ or _suggestio falsi_--generally of both. A book emanating from a priest is bad, that from a bishop is worse. Colenso, whom I regard as the only thoroughly truthful member of the episcopal hierarchy, is the one who is more foully treated by religionists than any other minister has ever been--"Tis true, 'tis pity, and pity 'tis, 'tis true."

We may be pardoned, if we close this chapter by the expression of our views as to the religion which will prevail when men have thought as much upon their future life as upon their present, and are honest with themselves:

1. They will try to form some distinct idea of what would be to them a heaven; but, as they will be wholly unsuccessful, they will cease to speculate upon it.

2. They will cease to fear a h.e.l.l, knowing that, if there be any immortal part of man, it must be immaterial; they will not believe that it can be tormented by material fires, forks, and furies.

3. They will cease to pay any attention to men who call themselves prophets, divine messengers, or vicars of G.o.d on earth, whether they use lying wonders or not.

4. Instead of constantly cogitating how much they can sin against, and yet get pardon from, some unknown deity, they will recognize the laws of nature for their guide, and live in communities as their reason dictates. The future will be left wholly in the power of the Creator.

5. There will be no belief in a trinity, in a virgin mother of G.o.d, in intercessors of any kind whatever between human beings and the invisible G.o.d; each man and woman will be independent and alone in the presence of the Supreme.

6. Man will no longer try to usurp the place of G.o.d, and persecute his fellow mortal on religious grounds.

7. There will be no priests or ministers of religion; but there will be instructors in science, in the laws of life, and moral order; there will be magistrates to enforce social propriety, and establishments where the insane and the criminal can be secluded.

8. There will be no strife about religion, for each will attend to his own personal concerns.

9. The laws of nature will be studied as regards marriage and family; the infected will not be allowed to perpetuate a feeble race, nor the diseased infant be pampered, that it may live to a sickly and useless maturity.*

* We may add, that there will then be neither silly women nor crotchety men, who will encourage free trade in fornication, and the diffusion of loathsome diseases, and endeavour to promote unnecessary suffering by their opposition to the methods of avoidance.

10. No law will be made but that which is drawn from a study of the ways of the Creator, and the proper requirements of His creatures.

11. Every pretender to revelation, or inspiration, will be incarcerated as a rogue or a lunatic.

12. The aim of all will be individual and general comfort, and as much happiness as is compatible with humanity.

When each does to others as he would be done by, the millennium, so much talked of, will have come.

APPENDIX.

27th March, 1875.

Dear Dr Inman,

At pp. 11 and 81 of your new volume, the proof-sheets of which you were good enough to show me, you intimate that an earlier origin can be found for all Hebrew feasts and observances excepting the Sabbath. It would appear, from discoveries made and works published since you began to write, that you need not make even this exception. There are, I think, plain indications of a Sabbath among the Egyptians, and proofs of its observance by the a.s.syrians.

Dr G. G. Zerffi, in a note appended to Mr Tyssen's _Origin of the Week_*

says--"Judging from the Egyptian mythology, we are justified in a.s.suming that they had some correct notions of the division of time. Their eight G.o.ds of the first order point to an incarnation of the cosmical forces, or the planetary system. The twelve G.o.ds of the second order undoubtedly presided over the twelve months of the year; whilst the seven G.o.ds of the third order were to watch over the seven days of the week..... The Teutons have inherited the division, not only of the week in seven days, but also the names by which these days are called, from the Indians....." (Bohlen's _Das alte Indien_; _Toth_, by Dr Uhlemann; and Bunsen's _Egypt's Place in History_; Tacitus, Suidas, Pliny, and Amosis).

* The Origin of the Week Explained, by A. D. Tyasen, B.C.L., M.A.; Williams & Noigate, 1875.

These, perhaps, are only what I have called them, indications of a Sabbath, since it is conceivable that a week of seven days might exist without one day being more sacred than another. A plainer indication may be found in the Hymn to Amen-Ka, which exists upon a hieratic papyrus, judged to be of the fourteenth century, B.C., and purporting to be only a copy of an earlier writing. I quote four lines, and call attention to the fourth:--

O! Ra adored in Aptu [Thebes]: High-crowned in the house of the obelisk [Heliopolis]: King (Ani) Lord of the New-moon festival: To whom the sixth and seventh days are sacred.*

When we leave Egypt for a.s.syria, we pa.s.s from indication to proof. At p.

12 of George Smith's _a.s.syrian Discoveries_,** the author says--"In the year 1869 I discovered, among other things, a curious religious calendar of the a.s.syrians, in which every month is divided into four weeks, and the seventh days, or 'Sabbaths' are marked out as days on which no work should be undertaken." More precise information as to these Sabbath-days is given by Rev. A. H Sayce, M.A., in _Records of the Past_, vol. I., p.

164, where the following words occur:--"The Babylonian year was divided into twelve months of thirty days each, with an intercalary month every six years.... According to the lunar division, the seventh, fourteenth, nineteenth, twenty-first, and twenty-eighth days were days of 'rest' on which certain works were forbidden."

* Translated by C. W. Goodwin, M.A., in Records of the Past, vol. II Bagster & Sons.