Many Theists rely on the intuitional argument. It is, perhaps, best to allow the Baird Lecturer to reply to these:-"Man, say some, knows G.o.d by immediate intuition, he needs no argument for his existence, because he perceives Him directly-face to face-without any medium. It is easy to a.s.sert this but obviously the a.s.sertion is the merest dogmatism. Not one man in a thousand who understands what he is affirming will dare to claim to have an immediate vision of G.o.d, and nothing can be more likely than that the man who makes such a claim is self-deluded." And Professor Flint urges that: "What seem intuitions are often really inferences, and not unfrequently erroneous inferences; what seem the immediate dictates of pure reason, or the direct and unclouded perceptions of a special spiritual faculty, may be the conceits of fancy, or the products of habits and a.s.sociation, or the reflexions of strong feeling. A man must prove to himself, and he must prove to others, that what he takes to be an intuition, is an intuition. Is that proof in this case likely to be easier or more conclusive than the proof of the Divine existence? The so-called immediate perception of G.o.d must be shown to be a perception and to be immediate; it must be vindicated and verified; and how this is to be done, especially if there be no other reasons for believing in G.o.d than itself, it is difficult to conceive. The history of religion, which is what ought to yield the clearest confirmation of the alleged intuition, appears to be from beginning to end a conspicuous contradiction of it. If all men have the spiritual power of directly beholding their Creator-have an immediate vision of G.o.d-how happens it that whole nations believe in the most absurd and monstrous G.o.ds? That millions of men are ignorant whether there be one G.o.d or thousands?" And still more strongly he adds: "The opinion that man has an intuition or immediate perception of G.o.d is untenable; the opinion that he has an immediate feeling of G.o.d is absurd."
Every child is born into the world an Atheist, and if he grows into a Theist, his Deity differs with the country in which the believer may happen to be born, or the people amongst whom he may happen to be educated. The belief is the result of education or organisation. This is practically conceded by Professor Flint, where he speaks of the G.o.d-idea as transmitted from the Jews, and says: "We have inherited it from them.
If it had not come down to us, if we had not been born into a society pervaded by it, there is no reason to suppose that we should have found it out for ourselves." And further, he maintains that a child is born "into blank ignorance, and, if left entirely to itself, would, probably, never find out as much religious truth as the most ignorant of parents can teach it." Religious belief is powerful in proportion to the want of scientific knowledge on the part of the believer. The more ignorant the more credulous. In the mind of the Theist "G.o.d" is equivalent to the sphere of the unknown; by the use of the word he answers, without thought, problems which might otherwise obtain scientific solution. The more ignorant the Theist, the more numerous his G.o.ds. Belief in G.o.d is not a faith founded on reason. Theism is worse than illogical; its teachings are not only without utility, but of itself it has nothing to teach. Separated from Christianity with its almost innumerable sects, from Muhammadanism with its numerous divisions, and separated also from every other preached system, Theism is a will-o"-the-wisp, without reality. Apart from orthodoxy, Theism is the veriest dreamform, without substance or coherence.
What does Christian Theism teach? That the first man, made perfect by the all-powerful, all-wise, all-good G.o.d, was nevertheless imperfect, and by his imperfection brought misery into the world, where the all-good G.o.d must have intended misery should never come; that this G.o.d made men to share this misery-men whose fault was their being what he made them; that this G.o.d begets a son, who is nevertheless his unbegotten self, and that by belief in the birth of G.o.d"s eternal son, and in the death of the undying who died as sacrifice to G.o.d"s vengeance, men may escape the consequences of the first man"s error.
Christian Theism declares that belief alone can save man, and yet recognises the fact that man"s belief results from teaching, by establishing missionary societies to spread the faith. Christian Theism teaches that G.o.d, though no respecter of persons, selected as his favorite one nation in preference to all others; that man can do no good of himself or without G.o.d"s aid, but yet that each man has a free will; that G.o.d is all-powerful, but that few go to heaven, and the majority to h.e.l.l; that all are to love G.o.d, who has predestined from eternity that by far the largest number of human beings are to be burning in h.e.l.l for ever. Yet the advocates for Theism venture to upbraid those who argue against such a faith.
Either Theism is true or false. If true, discussion must help to spread its influence; if false, the sooner it ceases to influence human conduct the better for human kind. This Plea for Atheism is put forth as a challenge to Theists to do battle for their cause, and in the hope that, the strugglers being sincere, truth may give laurels to the victor and the vanquished: laurels to the victor, in that he has upheld the truth; laurels which should be even more welcome to the vanquished, whose defeat crowns him with a truth he knew not of before.
APPENDIX
A few years ago a Nonconformist minister invited me to debate the question, "Is Atheism the True Doctrine of the Universe?" and the following was in substance my opening statement of the argument, which for some reason, although many letters pa.s.sed, was never replied to by my reverend opponent.
"By Atheism I mean the affirmation of one existence, of which existence I know only mode; each mode being distinguished in thought by its qualities. This affirmation is a positive, not a negative, affirmation, and is properly describable as Atheism because it does not include in it any possibility of _Theos_. It is, being without G.o.d, distinctly an Atheistic affirmation. This Atheism affirms that the Atheist only knows qualities, and only knows these qualities as the characteristics of modes. By "existence" I mean the totality of phenomena and all that has been, is, or may be necessary for the happening of any and every phenomenon. By "mode" I mean each cognised condition (phenomenon or aggregation of phenomena). By "quality" I mean that characteristic, or each of those characteristics, by which in thought I distinguish that which I think. The word "universe" is with me an equivalent for "existence."
"Either Atheism or Theism must be the true doctrine of the Universe. I a.s.sume here that no other theory is thinkable. Theism is either Pantheism, Polytheism, or Monotheism. There is, I submit, no other conceivable category. Pantheism affirms one existence, but declares that some qualities are infinite, e.g. that existence is intelligent. Atheism only affirms qualities for phenomena. We know each phenomenon by its qualities; we know no qualities except as qualities of some phenomenon.
By infinite I mean illimitable. Phenomena are, of course, finite. By intelligent I mean able to think. Polytheism affirms several Theistic existences-this affirmation being nearly self-contradictory-and also usually affirms at least one non-theistic existence. Monotheism affirms at least two existences: that is, the Theos and that which the Theos has created and rules. Atheism denies alike the reasonableness of Polytheism, Pantheism, and Monotheism. Any affirmation of more than one existence is on the face of the affirmation an absolute self-contradiction, if infinity be pretended for either of the existences affirmed. The word "Theos" or "G.o.d" has for me no meaning. I am obliged, therefore, to try to collect its meaning as expressed by Theists, who, however, do not seem to me to be either clear or agreed as to the words by which their Theism may be best expressed. For the purpose of this argument I take Monotheism to be the doctrine "that the universe owes its existence and continuance in existence to the wisdom and will of a supreme, self-existent, eternal, infinite, omnipotent, omniscient, righteous, and benevolent personal being, who is distinct from and independent of what he has created." By wisdom and will I mean that which I should mean using the same words of any animal able to perceive, remember, reflect, judge, and determine, and active in that ability or those abilities. By supreme I mean highest in any relation of comparison. By self-existent I mean that the conception of which, if it be conceivable, does not involve the conception of antecedent or consequent. By eternal and infinite I mean illimitable in duration and extent. By "omnipotent" I mean supreme in power over everything. By omniscient, knowing everything. By "righteous and benevolent" I mean that which the best educated opinion would mean when applying those words to human beings. This doctrine of Monotheism appears to me to be flatly contradicted by the phenomena we know. It is inconsistent with that observed uniformity of happening usually described as law of nature. By law of nature I mean observed order of event. The word "nature" is another equivalent for the word universe or existence. By uniformity of happening I mean that, given certain conditions, certain results always ensue-vary the conditions, the results vary. I do not attack specially either the Polytheistic, Pantheistic, or Monotheistic presentments of Theism. To me any pretence of Theism seems impossible if Monism be conceded, and, therefore, at present, I rest content in affirming one existence. If Monism be true, and Atheism be Monism, then Atheism is necessarily the true theory of the universe. I submit that "there cannot be more than one ultimate explanation" of the universe.
That any "tracing back to two or more" existences is illogical, and that as it is only by "reaching unity" that we can have a reasonable conclusion, it is necessary "that every form of Dualism should be rejected as a theory of the universe." If every form of Dualism be rejected, Monism, i.e. Atheism, alone remains, and is therefore the true and only doctrine of the universe."
Speaking of the prevalence of what he describes as "a form of agnosticism," the editor of the _Spectator_ writes: "We think we see signs of a disposition to declare that the great problem is insoluble, that whatever rules, be it a mind or only a force, he or it does not intend the truth to be known, if there is a truth, and to go on, both in action and speculation, as if the problem had no existence. That is the condition of mind, we know, of many of the cultivated who are not sceptics, nor doubters, nor inquirers, but who think they are as certain of their point as they are that the circle will not be squared. They are, they think, in presence of a recurring decimal, and they are not going to spend life in the effort to resolve it. If no G.o.d exists, they will save their time; and if he does exist, he must have set up the impenetrable wall. A distinct belief of that kind, not a vague, pulpy impression, but a formulated belief, exists, we know, in the most unsuspected places, its holders not unfrequently professing Christianity, as at all events the best of the illusions; and it has sunk very far down in the ladder of society. We find it catch cla.s.ses which have suddenly become aware that there is a serious doubt afloat, and have caught something of its extent and force, till they fancy they have in the doubt a revelation as certainly true as they once thought the old certainty." Surely an active, honest Atheism is to be preferred to the state of mind described in the latter part of the pa.s.sage we have just quoted.
A FEW WORDS ABOUT THE DEVIL
DEALING with the Devil has been a perilous experiment. In 1790, an unfortunate named Andre Dubuisson, was confined in the Bastille, charged with raising the Devil. In the reign of Charles I, Thomas Browne, yeoman, was indicted at Middles.e.x Sessions, for that he did "wickedly, diabolically, and feloniously make an agreement with an evil and impious spirit, that he, the same Thomas Browne, would within ten days after his death, give his soul to the same impious and evil spirit," for the purpose of having a clear income of 2,000 a year. Thomas was found not guilty. In 1682, three persons were hanged at Exeter, and in 1712, five others were hanged at Northampton, for witchcraft and trafficking with the Devil, who has been represented as a black-visaged, sulphurous-const.i.tutioned individual, horned like an old goat, with satyr-like legs, a tail of unpleasant length, and a reckless disposition to buy people presumably his without purchase. I intend to treat the subject entirely from a Biblical point of view; the Christian Devil being a Bible inst.i.tution. I say the Christian Devil, because other religions also have their Devils, and it is well to prevent confusion. I frankly admit that none of these religions have a Devil so devilish as that of the Christian.
I am unable to say certainly whether I am writing about a singular Devil or a plurality of Devils. In many texts "Devils" are mentioned (Leviticus xvii, 7; Mark i, 34, &c.) recognising a plurality; in others "the Devil" (Luke iv, 2), as if there was but one. Seven Devils went out of Mary called Magdalene (Luke viii, 2). The Rev. P. Hains, a Wigan church clergyman, tells me that where "Devils" are to be found in the Gospels it is mistranslated and should be "Demons"-these being apparently an inferior sort of Devils. Hershon (Talmudical Commentary on Genesis, p. 299), quotes from Rabbi Yochanan, "There were three hundred different species of male demons in Sichin, but what the female demon is like I know not;" and from Rava, "If anyone wishes to see the demons themselves let him burn and reduce to ashes the offspring of a first-born black cat; let him put a little of it in his eyes and he will see them." a.s.suming that either there is one Devil, more than one, or less than one, and having thus cleared away mere numerical difficulties, we will proceed to give the Devil his due. The word Satan occurs 1 Samuel xxix, 4, and is there translated "adversary," (Cahen) "obstacle,"
see also I Kings xi, 14. Satan appears either to have been a child of G.o.d or a most intimate acquaintance of the family, for, on "a day when the children of G.o.d came to present themselves before the Lord, Satan came also amongst them," (Job I, 6) and no surprise or disapprobation is manifested at his presence. Some trace in this the Persian demonology where the good spirits surround Ormuzd and where Ahriman is the spirit of evil. The conversation in the Book of Job between G.o.d and the Devil has a value proportioned to the rarity of the scene and to the high characters of the personages concerned, despite the infidel criticism of Martin Luther, who condemns the Book of Job as "a sheer _argumentum fabula_." A Christian ought to be surprised to find "G.o.d omniscient"
putting to Satan the query: Whence comest thou? for he cannot suppose G.o.d, the all-wise, ignorant upon the subject. Satan"s reply: "From going to and fro in the earth, and from going up and down it," increases our surprise and augments our astonishment. The true believer should be astonished to find from his Bible that Satan could have gone to and fro in the earth, and walked up and down it, and yet not have met G.o.d, if omnipresent, at least occasionally, during his journeying. It is not easy to conceive omnipresence absent, even temporarily, from every spot where the Devil promenaded. The Lord makes no comment on Satan"s reply, but says: "Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth G.o.d and escheweth evil?" It seems extraordinary that G.o.d should wish to have the Devil"s judgment on the only good man then living: the more extraordinary, as G.o.d, the all-wise, knew Satan"s opinion without asking it, and G.o.d, the immutable, would not be influenced by the expression of the Devil"s views. Satan"s answer is: "Doth Job fear G.o.d for naught?
Hast thou not made an hedge about him, and about all that he hath on every side? Thou hast blest the work of his hand, and his substance is increased in the land; but put forth thine hand now and touch all that he hath, and he will curse thee to thy face." G.o.d"s reply to this audacious declaration is: "Behold, all that he hath is in thy power; only upon himself put not forth thine hand." And this was Job"s reward for being a perfect and upright man, one that feared G.o.d and eschewed evil. He was not actually sent to the Devil, but to the Devil was given power over all that he had. Job lost all without repining, sons, daughters, oxen, a.s.ses, camels, and sheep, all destroyed, and yet "Job sinned not." Divines urge that this is a beautiful picture of patience and contentment under wrong and misfortune. But it is neither good to submit patiently to wrong, nor to rest contented under misfortune. It is better to resist wrong; wiser to carefully investigate the causes of wrong and misfortune, with a view to their removal. Contentment under wrong is a crime; voluntary submission under oppression is no virtue.
"Again, there was a day when the sons of G.o.d came to present themselves before the Lord [as if G.o.d"s children could ever be absent from him], and Satan came also among them to present himself before the Lord. And the Lord [again] said unto Satan, From whence comest thou? And Satan answered the Lord and said, From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it. And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth? a perfect and upright man, one that feareth G.o.d, and escheweth evil? and still he holdeth fast his integrity, ALTHOUGH THOU MOVEDST ME AGAINST HIM TO DESTROY HIM WITHOUT CAUSE." Can G.o.d be moved against a man to destroy him without a cause? If so, G.o.d is neither immutable nor all-wise. Yet the Bible puts into G.o.d"s mouth the terrible admission that the Devil had moved G.o.d against Job to destroy him without cause.
If true, it destroys alike G.o.d"s goodness and his wisdom.
But Satan answered the Lord and said: "Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for his life; put forth thine hand now and touch his bone and his flesh, and he will curse thee to thy face."
Does the Lord now drive the Devil from his presence? Is there any expression of wrath or indignation against this tempter? "The Lord said unto Satan: Behold, he is in thine hand, but save his life." And Job, being better than everybody else, finds himself smitten in consequence with sore boils from the sole of his foot unto his crown. The ways of the Lord are not as our ways, or this would seem the reverse of an encouragement to virtue.
In the account of the numbering by David, in one place "G.o.d," and in another "Satan," occurs (1 Chron. xxi,1; 2 Sam. xxiv, 1), and to each the same act of "moving" or "provoking" David to number his people is attributed. There may be in this more harmony than ordinary men recognise, for one erudite Bible commentator tells us, speaking of the Hebrew word Azazel: "This terrible and venerable name of G.o.d, through the pens of Biblical glossers, has been _a devil, a mountain, a wilderness, and a he-goat._" Well may incomprehensibility be an attribute of deity when, even to holy and reverend fathers, G.o.d has been sometimes undistinguishable from a he-goat or a Devil. Moncure D. Conway writes: "There can be little question that the Hebrews, from whom the Calvinist inherited his deity, had no Devil in their mythology, because the jealous and vindictive Jehovah was quite equal to any work of that kind-as the hardening of Pharaoh"s heart, bringing plagues upon the land, or deceiving a prophet and then destroying him for his false prophecies."4
G.R. Gliddon"s extract from Land"s "Sacra Scritura," chap, iii, sec. 1. "Demonology and Devil-lore," vol. i, p. 11.
4 "Christian Records," by the Rev. Dr. Giles, p. 144.
G.o.d is a spirit. Jesus is G.o.d. Jesus was led up of the Spirit to be tempted of the Devil. All these propositions are equally credible.
On the temptation of Jesus by the Devil, the Rev. Dr. Giles writes: "That the Devil should appear personally _to the Son of G.o.d is certainly not more wonderful_ than that he should, in a more remote age, have appeared _among_ the Sons of G.o.d, in the presence of G.o.d himself, to tempt and 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 inadmissible; it is an insult to our understanding."5 It is pleasant to find clergymen zealously repudiating their own creeds.
5 "Pilgrim"s Progress from Methodism to Christianity."
I am not prepared to speak strongly as to the color of the Devil. White men paint him black; black men paint him white. He can scarcely be colorless, as otherwise the Evangelists would have labored under considerable difficulties in witnessing the casting out of the Devil from the man in the synagogue (Luke iv, 35, 36).This Devil is described as an unclean Devil. The Devils were subject to the 70 disciples whom Jesus appointed to preach (Luke x, 17), and they are not unbelievers: one text tells us that they believe and tremble (James ii, 19). It is a fact of some poor Devils that the more they believe the more they tremble. According to another text the Devil goeth about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour (1 Peter v, 8), though the Devil"s "doctrines" presumably include vegetarianism (1 Timothy iv, 1, 3). I am not sure what drinks devils incline to, though it is distinguished from the wine of the communion (1 Corinthians x, 21). Devils should be a sort of eternal salamanders, for there is everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels (Matt. xxv, 41); and there is a lake of brimstone and fire, into which the Devil was cast (Rev. xx, 10). The Devil has, at least upon one occasion, figured as a controversialist. For we learn that he disputed with the arch-angel Michael, contending about the body of Moses (Jude 9); in these degenerate days of personality in debate, it is pleasant to know that the religious champion was very civil towards his Satanic opponent. The Devil was imprisoned for 1,000 years in a bottomless pit (Rev. xx, 2). If a pit had no bottom, it seems but little confinement to shut the top. But, with faith and prayer even a good foundation may be obtained for a bottomless pit. The writer of Revelation, adopting the view of some Hebrew writers, speaks of "the dragon, that old serpent which is the devil and Satan" and following this, it is urged that the Devil was the serpent of Genesis-that is, that it was really Satan who, in this guise, tempted Eve. There is this difficulty in the matter-the Devil is a liar (John viii, 44); but in the interview with Eve the serpent seems to have confined himself to the strict truth (Gen. iii, 4, 5, 22). There is, in fact, no point of resemblance-no horns, no hoof, nothing except a tail.
Kalisch notes that "the Egyptians represented the eternal spirit Kneph, the author of all good, under the mythic form" of the serpent, but they employed the same symbol "for Typhon, the author of all moral and physical evil, and in the Egyptian symbolical alphabet, the serpent represents subtlety and cunning, l.u.s.t, and sensual pleasure."
The Old Testament speaks a little of the Devils, sometimes of Satan, but never of "The Devil;" yet Matthew ushers him in, in the temptation scene, without introduction, and as if he were an old acquaintance. I do not remember reading in the Old Testament, anything about the lake of brimstone and fire. Although Malachi iv, 1, speaks of the day "that shall burn as an oven when the wicked shall be burned up." This feature of faith was reserved for the warmth of Christian love to develop from some of the Talmudical writers. The Rev. C. Boutell in his Bible dictionary says, that, "it is at the least unfortunate that the word "h.e.l.l" should have been used as if the translation of the Hebrew "sheol."" Zechariah, in a vision, saw "Joshua, the High Priest, standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him" (Zach-ariah iii, 1). Why the Devil wanted to resist Joshua is not clear; but, as Joshua"s garments were in a very filthy state, it may be that he was preaching to the priest the virtues of cleanliness.
Jesus said that one of the twelve disciples was a Devil (John vi, 70).
You are told to resist the devil and he will flee from you (James iv, 7). If this be true, he is a cowardly Devil, and thus does not agree quite with Milton"s picture of his grand defiance, almost heroism. But then Milton was a poet, and true religion has but little poetry in it.
Jeroboam, one of the Jewish monarchs, ordained priests for the devils (2 Chron. ix, 15). In the time of Jesus, Satan must, when not in the body of some mad, deaf, dumb, blind, or paralytic person, have been occasionally in heaven; for Jesus, on one occasion, told his disciples that he saw Satan, as lightning, fall from heaven (Luke x, 18). Jesus told Simon Peter that Satan desired to have him, that he might sift him as wheat (Luke xxii, 31); perhaps Jesus was chafing his disciple. Paul, the apostle, seems to have looked on the Devil much as some bigots look on the police, for Paul delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, that they might learn not to blaspheme (1 Timothy i, 20).
Revivalists are much indebted for their evanescent successes to h.e.l.l and the Devil. Thomas English, a fair specimen of those very noisy and active preachers who do so much in promoting revivals, spoke of "dwelling with devouring fire, bearing everlasting burning, roasting on the Devil"s spit, broiling on his gridiron, being pitched about with his fork, drinking the liquid fire, breathing the brimstone fumes, drowning in a red-hot sea, lying on fiery beds."6 The vulgar tirades of Reginald Radcliffe, Richard Weaver, and C. H. Spurgeon, will serve to evidence that the above quotation is no exaggeration. In London, before crowded audiences, Mr. Weaver, without originality, and with only the merit of copied coa.r.s.eness, has called upon the Lord to "shake the unG.o.dly for five minutes over the mouth of h.e.l.l." Mr. Spurgeon has drawn pictures of h.e.l.l which, if true and revealed to him by G.o.d, would be most disgustingly frightful, and which being but the creation of his own morbid fancies, induce a feeling of contempt as well as disgust for the teacher, who uses such horrible descriptions to affright his weaker hearers.
6 Sharpe"s "History of Egypt," p. 196.
Calmet says that "By collecting all the pa.s.sages where Satan (or the Devil) is mentioned, it may be observed, that he fell from Heaven, with all his company; that G.o.d cast him down from thence for the punishment of his pride; and by his envy and malice, death, and all other evils came into the world; that by the permission of G.o.d he exercises a sort of government in the world over his subordinates, over apostate angels like himself; that G.o.d makes use of him to prove good men, and to chastise bad ones; that he is a lying spirit in the mouth of false prophets, seducers, and heretics; that it is he, or some of his, that torment, obsess, or possess men, that inspire them with evil designs, as did _David_, when he suggested to him to number his people, and to _Judas_ to betray _Jesus Christ_, and to Ananias and Sapphira to conceal the price of their field. That he roves about full of rage, like a roaring lion, to tempt, to betray, to destroy, and to involve us in guilt and wickedness.
"That his power and malice are restricted within certain limits, and controlled by the will of G.o.d; that he sometimes appears to men to seduce them; that he can transform himself into an angel of light; that he sometimes a.s.sumes the form of a spectre, as he appeared to the Egyptians while they were involved in darkness in the days of Moses; that he creates several diseases to men; that he chiefly presides over death, and bears aways the souls of the wicked to h.e.l.l; that at present he is confined to h.e.l.l, as in a prison, but that he will be unbound and set at liberty in the year of _Anti-Christ_; that h.e.l.l-fire is prepared for him and his; that he is to be judged at the last day. But I cannot perceive very clearly from scripture, that he torments the souls of the wicked in h.e.l.l, as we generally believe."
In his interesting volume on Elizabethan demonology Mr. Spalding urges that "the empire of the supernatural must obviously be most extended where civilization is the least advanced," and he gives three reasons for the belief in devils-1. "The apparent incapacity of the majority of mankind to accept a purely monotheistic creed." 2. "The division of spirits into hostile camps, good and evil." 3. "The tendency of all theological systems to absorb into themselves the deities extraneous to themselves, not as G.o.ds, but as inferior or even evil spirits."
Even if I were a theist I should refuse to see in G.o.d a being omniscient and omnipotent, who puts us into this world without our volition, leaves us to struggle through it unequally pitted against an almost omnipotent and super-subtle Devil; and who, if we fail, finally drops us out of this world into h.e.l.l-fire, where a legion of inferior devils finds constant and never-ending employment in inventing fresh tortures for us; our crime being, that we have not succeeded where success was rendered impossible. No high thinkings are developed by the doctrine of Devils and d.a.m.nation. If a potent faith, it degrades to imbecility alike the teacher and the taught, by its abhorrent mercilessness; and if mere form instead of a faith, then is the Devil doctrine a misleading sham.
WERE ADAM AND EVE OUR FIRST PARENTS?
THIS question, Were Adam and Eve our first parents? is indeed one of vital importance. A negative answer is a denial of the whole Christian scheme. The Christian theory is that Adam, the common father of the whole human race, sinned, and by his sin dragged down all his posterity to a state from which redemption was needed, and that Jesus is, and was, the Redeemer, by whom all mankind are, and were, saved from the consequences of the fall of Adam. If Adam therefore be not the first man, if it is not to Adam the various races of mankind are indebted for their origin, then the whole hypothesis of fall and redemption fails.
It is impossible in the s.p.a.ce of this pamphlet to give any statement and a.n.a.lysis of the various hypotheses as to the origin of the human race; that I have done at some length in my volume on "Genesis: its Authorship and Authenticity." Personally I incline to favor the doctrine of a plurality of sources for the various types of the human race. That wherever the conditions for life have been, there also has been the degree of life resultant on those conditions. My purpose here is not to demonstrate the correctness of my own thinking, but rather to ill.u.s.trate the incorrectness of the Genesaical teaching. Were Adam and Eve our first parents? On the one hand, an affirmative answer can be obtained from the Bible, which, though in Genesis v, 2, using Adam as a race-name, specifically a.s.serts (ii, 22) Adam and Eve to be the first man and woman made by G.o.d, and in the authorised version fixes the date of their making about 6,000 years, little more or less, from the present time. On the other hand, science emphatically declares man to have existed on the earth for a far more extended period, affirms that as far as we can trace man historically, we find him in isolated groups, diverse in type, till we lose him in the ante-historic period; and with nearly equal distinctness denies that the various existing races find their common parentage in one pair. It is only on the first point that I attack the Bible chronology of man"s existence. I am aware that calculations based upon the authorised version of the Old Testament Scriptures are open to objection, and that while from the Hebrew 1,656 years represent the period from Adam to the Deluge generally acknowledged, the Samaritan Pentateuch only yields for the same period 1,307 years, while the Septuagint version furnishes 2,242 years; but a most erudite Egyptologist, states a fatal objection to the Septuagint chronology-i.e., that it makes Methuselah outlive the Flood.7 The Deluge occurred, according to the Septuagint, in the year of the world 2,242, and by adding up the generations previous to his (Methuselah"s) birth-Adam, 230; Seth, 205; Enos, 190; Cainan, 170; Mahaleel, 165; Jared, 162; Enoch, 165; = 1,287-Methuselah was born in the year of the world 1287. He lived 969 years, and therefore died in 2256. But this is fourteen years after the Deluge.
7 "Harmony of the Four Evangelists, and Harmony of the Old Testament."
The Rev. Dr. Lightfoot, who wrote about 1644, fixes the month of creation at September, 5,572 years preceding the date of his book, and says that Adam was expelled from Eden on the day on which he was created.8 In my volume on Genesis (pp. 29-36) the reader will find the chronology of Genesis carefully examined. For our immediate purpose we will take the ordinary English Bible, which gives the following result: From Adam to Abraham (Genesis v and xi), 2,008; Abraham to Isaac (Genesis xxi, 5), 100; Isaac to Jacob (Genesis xxv, 26), 60; Jacob going into Egypt (Genesis xlvii, 9), 130; Sojourn in Egypt (Exodus xii, 41), 430; Duration of Moses" leadership (Exodus vii, 7; x.x.xi, 2), 40; thence to David, about 400; from David to Captivity, 14 generations (27), about 22 reigns, 473; Captivity to Jesus, 14 generations, about 5,934 = 234; less disputed 230 years of sojourn in Egypt, 230 = 4,004.
8 Munks" "Palestine," p.231
These dates follow the Bible statement, and there is no portion of the orthodox text, except the period of the Judges, which will admit any considerable extension of the ordinary Oxford chronology.
The Book of Judges is not a book of history. Everything in it is recounted without chronological order. It will suffice to say that the cyphers which we find in the Book of Judges and in the First Book of Samuel yield us, from the death of Joshua to the commencement of the reign of Saul, the sum-total of 500 years, which would make, since the exodus from Egypt, 565 years; whereas the First Book of Kings counts but 480 years, from the going out of Egypt down to the foundation of the temple under Solomon. According to this we must suppose that several of the judges governed simultaneously.(19)
Alfred Maury, in his profound essay on the cla.s.sification of tongues, traces back some of the ancient Greek mythologies to a Sanscrit source.
He has the following remark, worthy of earnest attention: "The G.o.d of heaven, or the sky, is called by the Greek _Zeus Pater_; and let us have notice that the p.r.o.nunciation of Z resembles very much that of D, inasmuch as the word Zeus becomes in the genitive (Dios). The Latins termed the same G.o.d, _Dies-piter_, or Jupiter. Now in the Veda, the G.o.d of heaven is called Dyashpitai." What is this but the original of our own Christian G.o.d the father, the _Jeue_ pater of the Old Testament? The Hebrew Records, whether or not G.o.d-inspired, are certainly not the most antique. Neither is it true that the Hebrew mythology is the most ancient, nor the Hebrew language the most primitive; on the contrary, the mythology is clearly derived, and the language in a secondary or tertiary state.